Is God necessary for (objective) morality?

[Kopji]

I just finished watching this debate between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan on the topic "Is God Necessary for Morality?" I have seen a lot of debates with Craig and I think this is probably the only debate where his opponent outperformed him.

Thanks for the link. Time well spent. My college years are long past but I enjoy this format for debate, I thought it was well done and both sides presented their positions well.

...A third possibility would be to say that objective morality cannot be based on God even if it does exist (Euthyphro dilemma).

Interesting, I see a lot of merit in this position. Something not discussed by the theist 'side' is that morality based on God ultimately relies on some kind of revelatory conduit between God and us. For God-based morality to be objective, it seems to me that the conduit must be objective too.

So, I am curious, if you were in a debate with a theist, which tactic do you think would be most effective and why?

I thought Kagan did very well. I was a little shocked that Craig did not seem to be aware of what a Compatiblist was, more importantly did not seem to be aware of the idea that we are creative agents and so free will is possible in the sense he was looking for.

If I were to express something differently, and that I thought was missing in the debate - I'd say that moral actions nurture, and that what good moral action nurtures is something like taking care of the environment. When the idea 'we get what we nurture' is included, morality can be thought of as something like gardening. I think the idea is simple and yet important. I might put it - a reason Nazis are bad is not only what they do, but what they nurture.

Also, if anyone has seen the debate, I would like to know what you thought in general.

As the debate continued I became a more frustrated with Craig' position being 'begging the question'. Bad things would happen if morality were subjective, so its not and there is a God because we need God. I'm probably being unfair there, but toward the end Craig was clearly struggling with some circular reasoning.

 

[Brian-M]

You're confusing frames of reference with standards. If there is not a way to integrate the differences and resolve them then either the results in question quantify different things, or somebody made a mistake.

In a way you are simply reinforcing the point that many "standards" are arbitrary conventions.

Like height from sea level and height from the center of the earth quantify two different things, and which mountain is higher depends on which concept of height you are referring to (due to the fact the earth bulges at the equator). Both are objective concepts of height, but slightly different concepts of height, and the objectively verifiable question "which mountain is higher" may depend on which concept of height is being used.

I see no reason why there can't be slightly different concepts of objective morality, with the question "is this a moral course of action" depending largely on exactly which concept of morality is being used.

Objective or not, there are always going to be conflicting concepts of morality until everyone agrees on precisely which concept the word "moral" refers to.

But universal agreement on the precise concept of morality is unlikely to ever occur. And so agreement on aspects of morality, like objectivity, are unlikely to ever be resolved because everyone is referring to slightly different concepts.

From which, I can only surmise that arguments such as this one are ultimately futile, and we're all basically wasting our time here.

 

[Darat]

If objective morality exists and you accept as its basis Kagan's definition of morality that I outlined, then it would go something like this:

Rape is wrong, by definition, because it harms the victim.

Rape. Would 2+2=4 be true in a universe with no one to calculate it?

In your "objective morality" we would have actions that would always be wrong no matter what the circumstances?

(ETA: And I'll leave to one side that what constitutes rape varies from culture to culture.)

 

[Aepervius]

This is indeed so, but I fail to see why that would be catastrophically relativist in terms of morality. I can easily admit that my own standards are not in any inherent way privilegded, and people can naturally choose instead of my liberal-humanist values for example fundamentalist Muslim or Christian standards. But that does not stop me from being able to evaluate and judge others' and my own behaviour objectively based on my criteria. It is up to my own code how I negotiate these differences between different points of valuation. Isn't this what morality fundamentally is about? That's the way, we, as conscious beings, exist in the world: we navigate by reason and personal judgement - and take responsibility for our judgment and actions. To my mind this is a moral view of the world and our experience of it, notwithstanding that the concept of "objective morality" is not in play.

Emphasis mine. As said above your evaluation will be self consistent with your moral standard. but that does not make moral standard objective or whatnot. it only makes *you* as individual person "self consistent" with your moral standard. And that is where all hell break loose, because if you judge an adulterian woman should not be punished, and another (let us say, muslim) want her stoned, and a third one want her nose cut, and another , say a christian which is ultra fundamentalist and want to go abck to middle age standard, want her a red A tatooed, objectively *WHO* is right ? I will tell you : none of them are right objectively. They are all right subjectively within their own standard code.

Now do i support stoning ? No because in my own standard code it is disgusting and murder. But it is my OWN subjective standard.

 

[llwyd]

Emphasis mine. As said above your evaluation will be self consistent with your moral standard. but that does not make moral standard objective or whatnot. it only makes *you* as individual person "self consistent" with your moral standard. And that is where all hell break loose, because if you judge an adulterian woman should not be punished, and another (let us say, muslim) want her stoned, and a third one want her nose cut, and another , say a christian which is ultra fundamentalist and want to go abck to middle age standard, want her a red A tatooed, objectively *WHO* is right ? I will tell you : none of them are right objectively. They are all right subjectively within their own standard code.

Now do i support stoning ? No because in my own standard code it is disgusting and murder. But it is my OWN subjective standard.

Well, I don't really disagree - my point was that even if we choose our standards subjectively, they still remain standards and there is no inherent logic that would automatically lead us to moral relativism. I strongly suspect that objective morality is a meaningless concept. I have no problem in condemning stoning of women or in fact anyone as wrong and primitive.

 

[Aepervius]

The moral relativism is not only (see wikipedia (*) moral relativism) been about *one* person changing her moral judgment depending on the situation, but about different person or different culture judging an ethical situation morally inherently *differently*.

De facto, once you accept that everybody/persons/culture has its own moral standard and is very subjective (aka there is no objective moral standard) then it all fall directly and logically into moral relativism.

Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures:

* Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise.[1]
* Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.[2]
* Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that, as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.[1]

Emphasis mine. Which is exactly as we were discussing, that moral might be self consistent within an individual, but varies among individual and groups, therefore : moral relativism. Or at least meta ethical relativism, which is a subset of moral relativism.

@bluskol, Weren't there culture which did not see women as human but as chattel, and raping was fine, as long as you raped only your OWN possession ? In which case even rape would fall under moral relativism.

(*) Wikipedia is not research yada yada , I know but i don't care enough for philosophy to check the reference. So sue me.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The ignorant assertiveness of atheism is just appalling, but it doesn't come as a surprise. Is there any chance that some animals do show a behavior that can be attributed to morality?

Before you shoot, look around . . .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html

Were you bitten by an atheist as a child?

Even assuming that Psi Baba is an atheist, what leads you to conclude that this statement is representative of the views of all atheists?

 

[bluskool]

There is also extensive literature of well-reasoned theology. It is very easy to mislead yourself and others with reason.

My point was that I am not talking about off the cuff reasoning, I am talking about well thought out and reasoned philosophies. Does theology have that? I suppose, but what they are reasoning about isn't of any real consequence for physical reality (accept for the fact that people believe and act on it). OTOH, ethics is based on and does have consequence for physical reality.

Why not? They have been honed by millions of years of evolution to become what they are, and are much more enduring than the layer of rationality we spread on top of them.

If you think that our instinctual reasoning is better than the sort of reasoning we use in science and philosophy, I am not sure I could convince you otherwise, accept maybe to point to scientific achievements.

Yes, they could. How would you go about doing so, what do you think it would prove, and why?

I don't really want to go into detail because I am sure you are aware of how we go about controlling for biases when reasoning about any other topic. The same would apply to morality. As far as what it would prove? Nothing, it's just a good practice if we want to achieve the closest approximation to truth (lowercase t).

Right. How much of it demonstrates that morality is objective and not merely an accident of history?

I said it aids us in determining who/what is a moral agent. I didn't say it says anything about whether or not morality is objective. Apparently you think it shows that morality is subjective, but can you explain how? Keep in mind that saying that it shows that we are poor moral reasoners or that we hold contradictory views would not say anything about the existence of objective morality.

I never said that reason was too flawed to understand morality, I said that reason alone is not sufficient to determine if morality is objective. There is a slight difference.

Fiar enough. I don't think I ever said that reason alone was enough either.

 

[bluskool]

That does not seem like a very consistent position to take.

Can you elaborate?

Indeed. However, morality simply does not appear to be an axiomatic system like mathematics. If it were, then snap moral judgments and reasoned moral positions would always be consistent.

So you think that morality can't be boiled down to a handful of postulates, from which a system of morality that matches up with observed reality can be derived? If that's the case, I suppose we just disagree. I don't think it would be easy, but it seems like a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[bluskool]

Rape would not happen without life.
2+2=4 is not a moral and yes would be true.

Okay, but "can happen" and "would be true" are two different things. 2+2=4 would also not be calculated or even conceived without life. You also seem to defining morality as that which cannot be true without life, but not offering an argument in support. The fact that it wouldn't happen without life does not mean it wouldn't still be true without life.

I'll give you another example. It's an objective fact that a spaceship can be constructed from material in the universe and flown from one planet to another, but would it happen without life? No.

 

[llwyd]

The moral relativism is not only (see wikipedia (*) moral relativism) been about *one* person changing her moral judgment depending on the situation, but about different person or different culture judging an ethical situation morally inherently *differently*.

Well, then we all are moral relativists as there are no practical means of judging whether a particular code of morals is objectively correct. Or is it enough that you just declare that your particular code is, actually, objectively correct. And then that person becomes a non-relativist? Well, then, to avoid the stigma of relativism, I declare my own set to be objectively correct. Now there!

 

[KingMerv00]

Ah crap. Leave for a day or two and the thread flies on by. I don't have the energy for a conversation like this. Sorry, Avalon.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Well, I guess if we define objective morality to mean whatever the moral code of the (possible) creator of the universe is. Even though it might be a truly shady character who casually orders the extermination of whole cities and nations. All I can say, that even so, I would reserve my judgment about his/her/its code of morality however objective it is said to be. Might does not equal right.

Yeah, I too would probably rebel against the creator of the universe and his objective morality. I kinda have that attitude towards tyrants

I kinda half-agree with you on this point. If God exists there still would not be objective morality, for the reasons I put in my previous post.

However, we may want to consider that if God exists, then God would be the best source of authority for moral values, given that God would presumably be omniscient and of perfect reason, that we were created for a purpose and that to act in accordance with God's moral code would lead to the ultimate fulfillment of this purpose. Of course we would be free to refuse and rebel and question this authority, The Devil being the prime example of this rejection.

Well, basically I'm making an argument based on an "If". If there happened to be a Creator of the Universe, we would have a major paradigm shift. First of all, life as we know it would actually have a purpose. Such purpose would be whatever the Creator of the Universe decided it to be. It's like finding out that your life is actually a book that's being written by someone. This author governs your life and everything that happens to you. Therefore, he is the ultimate authority to decide what's right and what's wrong.

But this is IF there happened to be a creator of the universe. Without evidence of this, we have no reason to believe that the Universe is governed by anyone nor has any purpose... nor any moral code. The only moral codes exist in the minds of humans, and there are as many moral codes as human minds and human viewpoints... and that's far from being objective at all.

 

[llwyd]

Morality may simply be an abstract concept, but that does not mean that action cannot be objectively moral or immoral. Deciding on which standard to use to measure morality is like deciding on which standard to use to measure the height of a mountain. Different standards may yield different results, but the results yielded by those standards can still be objective.

Well, there seems to be a disagreement about this as people argue that if the choice of the particular standard is subjective, then you cannot talk about objective morality. I'm not sure that this is a meaningful distinction, that is non-semantic. But I honestly cannot see how one could know that one has encountered objective and universally valid moral code.

 

[bluskool]

<snip>

...you demonstrated that many of the things which we take for granted as being "objective" really aren't. They are merely conventions which are so thoroughly ingrained in the fabric of our current experience that we mistakenly assume they are.

I'm seeing a lot of the same sort of mistaken assumptions about "objective morality".

<snip>

Indeed, he simply demonstrated that ONCE CHOSEN, the standard is objectively self consistent, but the *choosing* of the standard is subjective.

<snip>

You are both confusing arbitrary with subjective.

 

[uruk]

Well, no. Not quite. I think you're still missing the point.

Sound is our perception of the motion of "air pressure waves". Any particular note may or may not be defined as a specific frequency of those waves ... if we choose to agree on that definition. The waves themselves will exist, and the frequencies at which they travel will exist whether or not we elect to label them in some fashion. A above middle C is only even "400-ish Hz" (I like that, btw. ) because some group of humans agreed to label that approximate frequency in that fashion. It could have just as easily been 80Hz, or been called "farzle".

"Music" is even more problematic a concept, as most discussions on the topic between teenagers and their parents will clearly demonstrate.

The point is that while the frequency of a waveform can be described empirically or objectively, and that quality will exist even in the absence of such a description, none of the other qualities you mention can, or will. They are utterly dependent on the conventions and definitions agreed upon by those engaged in the discussion.

In large part you and I are agreeing, and saying much the same thing. I felt that your comment about A-440 merited being singled out because quite inadvertently you demonstrated that many of the things which we take for granted as being "objective" really aren't. They are merely conventions which are so thoroughly ingrained in the fabric of our current experience that we mistakenly assume they are.

I'm seeing a lot of the same sort of mistaken assumptions about "objective morality".

I understand your concerns with the definition of "A". I was not so much concerned with the lable applied to 440Khz but with the frequency itself being an objectivly observable phenomenon. I was addressing Plumjams implication or suggestion that "great" music exits objectivly. Although "music" can objectivly exists as a phenomenon of air pressure frequencies arrainged in specific patterns. "Great" is a subjective judgement when applied to music.

I know that you know this though.

 

[Piscivore]

Detonating a stick of dynamite may cause differing amount of damage depending on where it is located. In some situations, such as in the mining industry, detonating a stick of dynamite may even be beneficial.

This does not make the damage from detonating a stick of dynamite subjective. It only makes it situation dependent.

What's the distinction there?

The damage is objective fact- the dynamite killed six miners, the dynamite cracked 200 tons of rock. What that means- the "good" or "bad" of it- depends on who is considering the damage. To the widows of the miners, the explosion was "bad". To the mine owner, who suddenly had a rich new vein of ore exposed, it might be "good"- even considering the deaths.

"Subjective" means "existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought" -and ideas like "right" and "wrong", "good" or "bad" exist nowhere else.

Likewise with morality. Some people may greatly enjoy being bound in leather and lightly whipped, others may find it a traumatic experience. Whether or not the subject of this experience finds it pleasurable or traumatic can, in theory, be determined objectively through a brain scan while being subjected to this treatment.

Irrelevant- we understand the "mind" = "brain activity". What you need to find is "good" or "bad" outside a brain.

So the outcome, pleasure or suffering, is an objective result of this action, regardless of whether or not you actually know which outcome is being achieved.

No, not at all. Contrariwise, your "brain scan" is instead evidence that it is subjective. The reaction you are measuring in in the "mind", the brain- and occurs nowhere else.

So if we define morality as choosing to act in a manner intended to minimize the harm to or suffering of others,

That is a subjective judgement right there. We may be able to objectively measure how well a standard is being met once it is set, but it doesn't make the standard itself objective.

Some people might set the standard for measuring the height of a mountain as the distance from it's highest point to the center of the earth and conclude that Chimborazo is the tallest mountain, while others might set the standard for measuring the height of a mountain as the distance from it's highest point to sea level and conclude that Everest is the tallest mountain.

These standards exists only in people minds, and do not exist independently of thought or an observer.

But using the standard of distance from the center of the earth, Chimborazo is objectively the tallest mountain. Using the standard of from seal level, Everest is objectively the tallest mountain.

Height exist independently of the observer. No matter how one arbitrarily choses to measure it, how far one has to travel to get from the same "point A" on the mountain to get to the same "point B" does not change from person to person. In order for this to be an accurate anaolgy to morality, you need to measure which one is "better".

Morality may simply be an abstract concept,

"Abstract" concept is irrelevant.

Deciding on which standard to use to measure morality is like deciding on which standard to use to measure the height of a mountain.

No, it isnt. "Height" is objective, "better" is not.

In order to determine an objective measure of morality, you need to define a point of reference from which morality is measured by.

I'm attempting to use acting in a manner intended to minimize harm or suffering as a reference point with which to measure morality.

It doesn't matter what rhetorical tricks you perform after this- we're already in the realm of the subjective. Nothing outside human brains or human experience indicates this is "morality".

A tree is as tall as it is, no matter whether one chooses to to measure from the ground or it's deepest root. But the ree can be "good" to the person who relies on its apples for food, and at the same time "bad" to the wife of the guy that makes cider from them and then beats her.

You're trying to equivocate between standards that describe objective qualities and standards the prescribe subjective qualities.

The fact that your simplistic standard "acting in a manner intended to minimize harm or suffering" isn't used by any culture, anywhere, as a standard of morality should give you a hint which it is.

Because not everybody chooses to always act in a moral manner.

Why don't they, if the objectively understand what they do is wrong.

As for disagreements as to what does or does not constitute moral action, not everybody uses the same standards for their basis of morality.

Why not?

I may disagree with a lot of what you have to say, but arguing with someone holding strong contrary opinions is a great way to refine your own understanding and position.

Agreed.

 

[westprog]

Doubtful. We have already created devices whose "reasoning" is far more accurate and powerful than ours, and in doing so we have discerned that there are limits to what reason can accomplish -- the works of Goedel and Turing come to mind.

We've created devices which can calculate more accurately and powerfully - well, more quickly, anyway. I'm not aware of any calculation that a computer can do that can't be done with pen and paper. We haven't made any devices which can reason at all.

 

[westprog]

I think Plumjam gets lost or confused by his own analogies. To answer his question; yes great music does exist but only subjectivly in that there are people who would give a particular song the attribute of "great" and others who would not.

What is "great" depends on a value judgement of an individual or group. What critera is that defines that value differs from individual to individual. That is what makes it a subjective quality. You can show a person that middle "A" is defined as a vibrational frequency of 440khz, That is a measurable quality. "great" is not a similarly measurable quality since it relies on opinion or a human value judgement.

Color is an objective attribute because it is independent of human value judgement. Color is associated with a particular measurable, frequence or wavelength of photons. Adding the attribute of "beautiful" to a color necessitates a human value judgement. The attibute "beautifull" is a human value judgement that is determined on criteria that is not inherently measurable, or independant of a human opinion.

Objectively you can measure music by the order and timing of sound waves and their frequencies. These are objective attributes of music. The criteria for what is "great" music is not measurable or determined without a human value judgement. Therefore music can exist objectively but "great" music can only exist subjectively

The purpose of art is to change the state of mind of another person. A "great" piece of art presumably has the capacity to change someone's state of mind more profoundly than shallow art can ever do. Since the reception of a piece of art differs from person to person, and each person has a unique interaction with the art, it is never going to be possible to establish artistic merit with any certainty.

 

[uruk]

Morality can never be objective in the philosophical sense because it involves a value judgment placed on human behaiviour.

All you can ever say about the validity of any value judgement is that a large group of those making the value judgment agree with each other. This still does not make the value judgement objective just that there is a consensus.

We try to apply some rationality to the value judgement of the moral such as "greater good" or "greater benefit to the largest group", "least amount of harm" but terms like "good" and "benefit" and 'harm" are still value judgements that rely on a consensus for thier validity. And a value judgement is not objective because it inherently involves an opinion or choice or decision that cannot be measured in terms that involve conditions that are the same and equal for all observers. In other words, a value judgement is inherently relativistic.

The idea that morality is objective based on the decree of a deity first requires the presumption of the existance of that deity. And second (if the existance of the deity is a given) the deity, which is pressumanbly a thinking entity, makes an ultimate value judgment concerning morality. "Ultimate" meaning that the deity is not answerable or is responsible to any higher agency. Even so a value judgement is still being made concerning morality. It is still an opinion that determins the moral compass direction. Even if it is a deity's opinion it is still and opinion which makes it ultimately arbitrary.

So, the definition of objective morality is different from a religious perspective than the definition of objective morality from an academic philosophical perspective.