Absolute morality question

[Blue_Horizon]

Morality is a meaningless concept without objectivity. If you can’t start there (your post rejects it) then there’s not much to discuss.

What you get without an objective reference point is arbitrary force. (cloaked in things like consensus or popular wisdom). To be sure, societies may force standards on people that are good, but they are not arbitrary, they are “in reference to…” something other than “we said so”. Something like “you should die because my name is Stalin” is an arbitrary and self enclosed assertion, not an evaluation in reference to something larger.

Also, morality is not a thing.
Morality is an evaluation of acts in reference to the good. Everyone engages in decision making and makes assertions about what is good for people. Anyone who denies this is a silly fool. Even “I need another beer” is an evaluation about what is good for me. Morality is erroneously seen in popular culture as the arcane rules of superstitious religious zealots. Nonsense.

Morality is also used to refer to systems of statements and beliefs and rules. And this thread will go in circles over all that, I predict.

Why must morality be “objective”. I don’t see more than usual chaos following even if we did recognise it could well be strongly culturally (or otherwise) determined. That is in fact the better model of understanding such matters at the international level as they stand.

 

[reggieM]

Why must morality be “objective”.

I have debated this issue many times and have heard many atheists argue against “objective morality” and I have never yet known what that term means (I tend to agree with the atheists probably due to my ignorance?).

It’s just the term “objective” perhaps that doesn’t work for me (or maybe it is outdated).

I think it means that every person responds to a moral code that is “non-subjective”. To me, that’s a better way to say it. It means, that there is a universal norm, outside of the individual that every conscience knows and relates to.

The word “objective” I think usually means something that can be observed. So, a written code of laws (ten commandments) would be objective. It’s non-subjective because it didn’t come from a human being.

But we know that “objective morality” doesn’t mean “written code” - it’s universal moral norms that the conscience points to.

Also, another thing is, if it was “in the conscience” of each person - then it would be “subjective moral norms”.

Good people toss that term around “objective moral norms” and I don’t think most atheists know what it means – I’ll say as a believer I have struggled to understand it. I would never use it in an argument because I don’t think it helps at all.

 

[rossum]

So I was listening to the argument for absolute morality. This is how I understand it went:

A1 All people are conscious of an objective moral law.
A2 Moral law requires a moral lawgiver.
C There must be a moral lawgiver.

A1 is incorrect. Most people are aware, but some people are not, like psychopaths or sociopaths.

A2 is incorrect. Dharmic religions do not require a lawgiver; the laws of karma are more like the law of gravity in that they describe the way the universe works. The rules are not “You shall not…” but “If you do this then that happens.” There is no need for a god of gravity to make gravity work; the same goes for moral law. Actions have consequences and it is the action that causes the consequences. If you are hit on the head by a stone, the cause was you throwing that stone straight up into the air.

The conclusion fails because both A1 and A2 are incorrect, A2 more so than A1.

As a side issue, a lot of morality is not absolute in any real sense, but culturally determined. Is it immoral to eat pork? Do we hold our communal worship on Friday, Saturday or Sunday? Even for something as serious as killing another human, some countries retain the death penalty while others do not. Many of those that do not, see the death penalty itself as immoral.

$0.02

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Dharmic religions do not require a lawgiver; the laws of karma are more like the law of gravity in that they describe the way the universe works.

In that view, where did those laws come from - what is their origin? Why do they operate the way they do and not some other way?

 

[goout]

I have debated this issue many times and have heard many atheists argue against “objective morality” and I have never yet known what that term means (I tend to agree with the atheists probably due to my ignorance?).

It’s just the term “objective” perhaps that doesn’t work for me (or maybe it is outdated).

I think it means that every person responds to a moral code that is “non-subjective”. To me, that’s a better way to say it. It means, that there is a universal norm, outside of the individual that every conscience knows and relates to.

The word “objective” I think usually means something that can be observed. So, a written code of laws (ten commandments) would be objective. It’s non-subjective because it didn’t come from a human being.

But we know that “objective morality” doesn’t mean “written code” - it’s universal moral norms that the conscience points to.

Also, another thing is, if it was “in the conscience” of each person - then it would be “subjective moral norms”.

Good people toss that term around “objective moral norms” and I don’t think most atheists know what it means – I’ll say as a believer I have struggled to understand it. I would never use it in an argument because I don’t think it helps at all.

“Objective morality” is not a term I use.
We have morality: the evaluation of human acts in reference to the good (condensation of the CCC statement).
Objective in the way I am using it means:
“the good” we are referring to is not subject to any particular person’s whims or desires. “The good” is identifiable outside the ebb and flow of preference, custom, etc…

This does not deny that various cultures subject moral standards of evaluation to their own knowledge, time, and place, but recognizes that, even then, there is “more” that transcends the particular set of standards a society employs.

For us, the transcendent object and goal of our moral evaluations is God himself, the embodiment or essence of the good.

If you don’t have an objective reference point, morality is a meaningless mental exercise.
What you have is the force of the majority or minority. Or chaos. However it goes.

 

[rossum]

In that view, where did those laws come from - what is their origin? Why do they operate the way they do and not some other way?

The laws exist: “as you sow, so shall you reap.” Given that they exist, their origin is not a useful question. The useful quesiton is how do we work with those laws to attain our goal. The parable of the man shot with a poisoned arrow is relevant here:

[The Buddha said:] 'It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, … and the wounded man were to say “I will not have the arrow taken out until I know the caste of the man who shot it, … his tribe … his clan … his village … his height etc.” [many questions omitted here] That man would die Malunkyaputta, before he learned all that he wanted to know.

'In exactly the same way, Malunkyaputta, any one who says “I will not lead the religious life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One explains to me whether the universe is eternal, whether the universe is not eternal, whether the universe is finite, whether the universe is infinite etc.” [many questions omitted here] That person would die Malunkyaputta, before I had ever explained all this to that person.

‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

– Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63

Knowing the origin of karma does not help towards the goal.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

The laws exist: “as you sow, so shall you reap.” Given that they exist, their origin is not a useful question.

Ok, that is a different perspective than the Catholic one, certainly.

Knowing the origin of karma does not help towards the goal.

In our view, if we know the origin of karma comes from God, then it is very helpful in our goal of knowing more about God and loving Him more fully. We know that God is transcendent to the laws He created and that He had a reason and purpose in creating the laws for our benefit. It gives us confidence in prayer, knowing that His power can go beyond laws - giving mercy instead of exacting payment rigorously, and on the physical level working miracles in response to prayer.

But regarding the story, I think we would agree that pursuing knowledge for the wrong reasons, and believing that we can know all the mysteries of the origin of things would be wasteful and even wrong approach.

Thank you for sharing your perspective on this.

 

[reggieM]

“Objective morality” is not a term I use.
We have morality: the evaluation of human acts in reference to the good (condensation of the CCC statement).
Objective in the way I am using it means:
“the good” we are referring to is not subject to any particular person’s whims or desires. “The good” is identifiable outside the ebb and flow of preference, custom, etc…

This does not deny that various cultures subject moral standards of evaluation to their own knowledge, time, and place, but recognizes that, even then, there is “more” that transcends the particular set of standards a society employs.

For us, the transcendent object and goal of our moral evaluations is God himself, the embodiment or essence of the good.

If you don’t have an objective reference point, morality is a meaningless mental exercise.
What you have is the force of the majority or minority. Or chaos. However it goes.

That is helpful - thanks.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have debated this issue many times and have heard many atheists argue against “objective morality” and I have never yet known what that term means (I tend to agree with the atheists probably due to my ignorance?).

It’s just the term “objective” perhaps that doesn’t work for me (or maybe it is outdated).

I think it means that every person responds to a moral code that is “non-subjective”. To me, that’s a better way to say it. It means, that there is a universal norm, outside of the individual that every conscience knows and relates to.

The word “objective” I think usually means something that can be observed. So, a written code of laws (ten commandments) would be objective. It’s non-subjective because it didn’t come from a human being.

But we know that “objective morality” doesn’t mean “written code” - it’s universal moral norms that the conscience points to.

Also, another thing is, if it was “in the conscience” of each person - then it would be “subjective moral norms”.

Good people toss that term around “objective moral norms” and I don’t think most atheists know what it means – I’ll say as a believer I have struggled to understand it. I would never use it in an argument because I don’t think it helps at all.

I don’t know if you put much credence in arguments from “authority” but, having the equivalent of a Masters in Phil/Theol let me put this to you…
I have struggled with understanding “natural law” as you clearly have also. In fact it is a highly ambiguous concept even in Catholic Theology.
Some years ago I came to the conclusion that Catholic theologians, whether they know it or not, have since the Enlightenment been at war over the foundational meaning of the concept.
I majored in Aquinas whom I believe is correct, yet strangely most non Dominican theologians for the last 500 years seem to have badly misunderstood the radical nature of his teaching on NL, conscience and objectivity.

Objectivity is simply the assertion that moral norms derive from the application of right reason to human nature. If all peoples share the same human nature, and if we could all reason rightly without the distorting emotion borne of communal biases we would all comes to the same conclusions re the main Commandments. This is natural law.

The problem is that the word “law” is really here used only analogically, yet most consider it to be literal. That is, NL is literally what is stated by either a human or divine being. That is nonsense in my mind.

What is stated or written by humans is but a static and dead conclusion of a dynamic process of prudential reasoning that must always be ongoing because circumstances change therefore the application of living reason may change also concluding in variations to prior insights. Conclusions will likely be much the same but may vary in detail.
This is exactly the act of conscience…it is both individual and communal. Though executed individually, if emotion does not distort…we should communally arrive at the same answer if we speak to the same situation.

The problem of course is when some minority group (“authority”) alleges they have right reason and freedom from bias and assert (using written law) their view is therefore the true one!
If we strongly disagree then it is difficult to know who is objectively objective .
In the end nobody really knows…we have to live somewhat subjectively regardless of all this!

 

[goout]

Here are some examples of the word objective used by JP2 in Veritatis Splendor, to gain a sense of the usage:

1. The Second Vatican Council points out that the “supreme rule of life is the divine law itself, the eternal, objective and universal law by which God out of his wisdom and love arranges, directs and governs the whole world and the paths of the human community. God has enabled man to share in this divine law, and hence man is able under the gentle guidance of God’s providence increasingly to recognize the unchanging truth”.78

1. The great concern of our contemporaries for historicity and for culture has led some to call into question the immutability of the natural law itself, and thus the existence of “objective norms of morality” 96 valid for all people of the present and the future, as for those of the past. Is it ever possible, they ask, to consider as universally valid and always binding certain rational determinations established in the past, when no one knew the progress humanity would make in the future?

In reference to conscience and it’s relationship with objective moral norms:

1. Like the natural law itself and all practical knowledge, the judgment of conscience also has an imperative character: man must act in accordance with it. If man acts against this judgment or, in a case where he lacks certainty about the rightness and goodness of a determined act, still performs that act, he stands condemned by his own conscience, the proximate norm of personal morality. The dignity of this rational forum and the authority of its voice and judgments derive from the truth about moral good and evil, which it is called to listen to and to express. This truth is indicated by the “divine law”, the universal and objective norm of morality. The judgment of conscience does not establish the law; rather it bears witness to the authority of the natural law and of the practical reason with reference to the supreme good, whose attractiveness the human person perceives and whose commandments he accepts. “Conscience is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and what is evil. Rather there is profoundly imprinted upon it a principle of obedience vis-à-vis the objective norm which establishes and conditions the correspondence of its decisions with the commands and prohibitions which are at the basis of human behaviour”.106

JP2 spends considerable thought weaving the individual conscience into the objective moral order… Perhaps the most clear usage of the term:

1. In any event, it is always from the truth that the dignity of conscience derives. In the case of the correct conscience, it is a question of the objective truth received by man; in the case of the erroneous conscience, it is a question of what man, mistakenly, subjectively considers to be true. It is never acceptable to confuse a “subjective” error about moral good with the “objective” truth rationally proposed to man in virtue of his end, or to make the moral value of an act performed with a true and correct conscience equivalent to the moral value of an act performed by following the judgment of an erroneous conscience.

 

[rossum]

Ok, that is a different perspective than the Catholic one, certainly.

Not that different if you think about it. How much time do Catholics spend worrying about the origins of God? God is probably more important to the Abrahamic religions than karma is to the Dharmic religions.

In our view, if we know the origin of karma comes from God, then it is very helpful in our goal of knowing more about God and loving Him more fully.

That just bumps the origin problem up one level, but does not actually solve it.

We know that God is transcendent to the laws He created and that He had a reason and purpose in creating the laws for our benefit.

No. All gods are subject to karma. Gods are not above morality, they are subject to it. At this point the Euthyphro dilemma enters stage left.

It gives us confidence in prayer, knowing that His power can go beyond laws - giving mercy instead of exacting payment rigorously

To me that is a problem. The punishment does not fit the crime if God decides differently. Hence punishment becomes arbitrary. I find that a disincentive to morality. I can commit murder, but as long as I sacrifice ten chickens and a horse to Odin I won’t be punished for it. That is not my idea of a good morality. Buddhism does not have sin, instead it has our actions and their results. Not having sin, it does not have the forgiveness of sin either. If you do the crime then you do the time. No exceptions.

As an adjunct, since all our actions are finite, the Buddhist hells and the Buddhist heavens are all finite as well. You spend time there, but not eternity.

rossum

 

[Russell_SA]

Well, you have to start before that point to arrive at moral values.

You accepted that true and false cannot be derived by logic or reasoning. So, those are principles or rules.

Once you have that, now you have to decide that “true” is good, and “false” is bad.

Isn’t reality the “law-giver” for the reference of “true” and “false” because what is true and false to the entity interacting with reality is the predictiveness of the true identities. Gravity is true, because it continues to be predictive in how that action works. Idea B that denies gravity is false because it does not conform to the observed predictive nature of the reality the entity is interacting with. So the again, the “law-giver” of true and false is the reference of reality the entity is interacting with. or do you see this differently or something wrong with that conclusion?

 

[Russell_SA]

Morality is a meaningless concept without objectivity. If you can’t start there (your post rejects it) then there’s not much to discuss.

That’s why they went to the idea of the game as a reference. Rules of right and wrong are meaningless until you reference them to a system. So once you’ve determined what your game is you want to play, then you can have right and wrong moves and rules. The most common game that humanity appears to be playing is the well-being of our species. There you can find overlap beyond culture, such as life is preferable to death, ease of access to food, shelter, etc over not having those commodities, etc. They referenced Sam Harris’ moral landscape’s example of nutrition. Once you select nutrition as your goal then you can argue over apples or oranges, but it’s an absolute that drinking battery acid is objectively bad when referencing nutrition as your 0 point on the number line.

Or do you see this differently or find something wrong in that argument they presented?

 

[Russell_SA]

You seem to deny the very being of those you are discussing this with. Have you ever thought about the others on this board? How could you imagine that those posting here would not give you a Catholic position on your question, when many of us give our very being in faith to Christ?

Are we pretending to look for answers and honest discussion here?
Yep.

I didn’t intend on that as a response. I thought I was clear there that I am open to what everyone’s take on this issue is. It’s already assumed that many responses would be filtered through the catholic church’s teaching since this is a catholic church site. But since I don’t play in that pool, I don’t know how people take the CC stance on the CC’s official ruling on this and then implement it in their lives. I’m wanting people to start from the point of how they are applying this idea in real time and where they have gone with it regardless of the CC official position. If that made since. I’ll try to clarify that if it doesn’t.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Here are some examples of the word objective used by JP2 in Veritatis Splendor, to gain a sense of the usage:

In reference to conscience and it’s relationship with objective moral norms:

JP2 spends considerable thought weaving the individual conscience into the objective moral order… Perhaps the most clear usage of the term:

And where does the universal truth of the “moral norm” come from exactly?

Sure, it is generally self-evident and commonly agreed that apriori, non-contingent universals be followed e.g. seek goodness, avoid evil.

Unfortunately that apriori certainty and universality starts to falter a little the moment we start defining more practical norms that contain contingent/practical terms. e.g. It is always immoral to kill those who are not attacking us.

It sounds fine when we call this “murder” - but the two terms are not univocal.
If we define murder as “unjust killings” its a mere tautology.
Is “killing the innocent” much better?
But when we render murder as “killing those who are not attacking us” it starts to sound both universal and practical and hence objective - but is it.

Sure, we could preserve the universality of this norm by prudentially disagreeing over what constitutes an “attack” (e.g. is the fertilised ovum of a rapist still an attack?).

But then, for all intents and purposes, we seem to have denied the alleged universality of the norm for all practical purposes.

Its a bit like the mathematical concept of a “point”. It doesn’t actually exist in practice - for it is infinitely small.

So is their such a thing as natural law or objective moral norms that we all ought to see as self evident?

Yes and no.
Yes the abstract universals exist - but whether we can ever all agree as to how they apply in practice…effectively that is subjective and always will be.

However at least a theory of objectivity allows for a structured and ongoing healthy dialogue to take place. As is happening here.

 

[reggieM]

Isn’t reality the “law-giver” for the reference of “true” and “false” because what is true and false to the entity interacting with reality is the predictiveness of the true identities. Gravity is true, because it continues to be predictive in how that action works. Idea B that denies gravity is false because it does not conform to the observed predictive nature of the reality the entity is interacting with. So the again, the “law-giver” of true and false is the reference of reality the entity is interacting with. or do you see this differently or something wrong with that conclusion?

It’s a good thought and interesting way to look at it, but yes I see it differently and I think there is something missing in this view.
Yes, true is what conforms to reality and false does not.
However, reality does not give us this law. It is not the law maker.
Because the law is “there is a difference between true and false”.
But, reality could show this idea to be different: “That which exists is true. Ideas exist. So, every idea is true”.
So, in your example, The idea of gravity exists - it is therefore true. But Idea B that denies gravity is also true, because it exists.
Also, what does not exist, just is not there. Reality does not tell us to call that “false”.
So, we could just say there is What Exists. It could have been, that which we consider False, since it does not conform to reality, is non-existence and we wouldn’t even be able talk about it.
But instead of that, we have an actual law that tells us there is a difference between what is true and what is false - and that is different than just exist and not-exist.

Importantly, beyond that - the law tells us (universally with no ambiguity) that there is a positive value (good) to true and a negative (bad) to false.

That also does not need to be the case. Why not true and false as equal?

This the basic element that governs human behavior and morality – it is built into human life, forming the structure of the moral law.
Unintelligent physical processes cannot create that law.
Human beings did not create the law.
So, that law (true and false are different and true has positive value) has to come from a lawmaker.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Isn’t reality the “law-giver” for the reference of “true” and “false” because what is true and false to the entity interacting with reality is the predictiveness of the true identities. Gravity is true, because it continues to be predictive in how that action works. Idea B that denies gravity is false because it does not conform to the observed predictive nature of the reality the entity is interacting with. So the again, the “law-giver” of true and false is the reference of reality the entity is interacting with. or do you see this differently or something wrong with that conclusion?

I think that is accurate.
The inherent teleology of nature and human nature and what makes society possible or not so possible is where the “law” comes from (ie natural law).

Unfortunately Catholics tends to think that “law” is verbal or written.
That is true, but such law is a derived and highly “refined”, limited and focussed representation of what I believe you speak of re “reality”.

And as Indian philosophy says, “The Way once named is no longer the Way.”

 

[reggieM]

Not that different if you think about it. How much time do Catholics spend worrying about the origins of God?

I’m sorry, I didn’t follow that. Catholics do not speak about the origin of God because God is eternally existent and origin of all created beings. In the Catholic view, a law, like karma or others, could be something other than it is and as an ordered effect, requires explanation for why that particular order. Some laws are created by humans, others are found in nature, others in the human spirit. We wouldn’t immediately think that all of these laws are eternal.

God is probably more important to the Abrahamic religions than karma is to the Dharmic religions.

If karma was as important as God is to the Abrahamic religions, then karma would be something that people would sacrifice their lives to serve and would actually worship it. So yes more important.

That just bumps the origin problem up one level, but does not actually solve it.

It solves it by bumping it to a level above which no one can go.

No. All gods are subject to karma. Gods are not above morality, they are subject to it. At this point the Euthyphro dilemma enters stage left.

Interesting perspective. This is radically different than the Catholic view. God is not subject to anything external to Himself. He is the origin of all and therefore supreme over all other being (laws, forces, created things) that come from Him.

To me that is a problem. The punishment does not fit the crime if God decides differently. Hence punishment becomes arbitrary. I find that a disincentive to morality. I can commit murder, but as long as I sacrifice ten chickens and a horse to Odin I won’t be punished for it.

When you consider that a punishment is payment by pain of some sort, then your concern here might disappear. A person who sacrifices ten chickens is offering worship and repentance to God, from His creation, of something precious. That is different from the person who commits murder and offers nothing. I would think karma works the same way. Some bad action is offset by good. In the Catholic view, anything we do to honor God is the highest possible action since we are giving our self (time, attention, wealth, work) to the greatest possible good (God).

That is not my idea of a good morality. Buddhism does not have sin, instead it has our actions and their results. Not having sin, it does not have the forgiveness of sin either. If you do the crime then you do the time. No exceptions.

You might misunderstand here - in the Catholic view, God’s mercy is not an “exception”. It is an expression of perfect Justice as well as Love. He who loves much is forgiven much. In the Catholic view, it is what is in the heart - the intention - of the act that counts.
A murder done for one reason will have a different punishment than one done for another. This follows through all human levels of knowledge, ability, background. Mercy comes to those who repent, but it does not mean that they do not make up for whatever bad karma (in your terms) they created by the offering of good.
In the Catholic view, a punishment of pain is not necessarily a greater re-payment than one of love. A person with a cold heart can endure pain perhaps more than others.
Perfect justice will weigh the intention, repentance, reparation, atonement, background of the person, with the action done. Mercy is given to those who recognize God’s love as something personal, as with a parent-child relationship.

As an adjunct, since all our actions are finite, the Buddhist hells and the Buddhist heavens are all finite as well. You spend time there, but not eternity.

The Catholic idea of heaven is a lot different also since it is oriented towards a union with God and represents the giving-choice of love to Him.

 

[reggieM]

The inherent teleology of nature and human nature and what makes society possible or not so possible is where the “law” comes from (ie natural law).

This might be fine depending on where you think “human nature” comes from.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This might be fine depending on where you think “human nature” comes from.

Not quite surer what you mean

By “human nature” I am referring to the same reality that Aristotle observed…a recognisable being who acts in specific ways within specific limits and with often recognisable inbuilt drives needs and teleologies as both an individual and in community.

Such is what we usually mean by “nature” I would think.