Does morality exist?

[Ender]

All right, let’s try this again. There are two questions I would like to address based on the assumption that God does not exist:

1. Can morality objectively exist or is all morality subjective?
2. What are the implications if morality is purely subjective?

We just had the thread closed where this discussion was going on and I’m pretty sure it’s because we couldn’t stay on topic so let’s be clear: no discussion of Christianity or any other religion that teaches that God exists is relevant. As stated in the Forum rules: if you want to discuss something other than the topic of this thread, start your own thread.

I’ll include some relevant comments from the other thread to hopefully get this started. I don’t mean to take liberties with what anyone has said so if I misrepresent the views of the person I’m quoting, please correct me.

Sair: "The notion that all things are permissible in the absence of a god is false …"
*
Oreoracle: “moral claims possess no truth value.”

*AntiTheist: “*I completely agree that anything and everything is permissible in the sense that you mean it”

*My understanding of this is that AntiTheist’s answers to my questions are: morality is purely subjective, and there is no moral reason not to do anything one wants to do. I think Oreoracle is saying that morality is subjective but no conclusion can be drawn about what (to him) this implies. I can’t quantify Sair’s comments except to say that she disagrees with AntiTheist about whether all things are permissible.

Ender

 

[AntiTheist]

All right, let’s try this again. There are two questions I would like to address based on the assumption that God does not exist:

1. Can morality objectively exist or is all morality subjective?

Morality does not exist. Obviously, there are moral codes, but these codes do not correspond to rules that are somehow “out there” in the universe, beyond an individual’s mind.

I agree with Oreoracle that “moral claims possess no truth value.” There are two kinds of statements: factual statements about the universe, which have a truth value and can be investigated, and value judgments, which do not have a truth value (i.e. they are neither true nor false) and cannot be investigated.

The claim that “a pie is on the table” is a factual statement that we can investigate and determine whether or not it is true or false. “That pie tastes good” is a value judgment that cannot be said to be true or false outside of a particular individual who applies his values to the world. Someone else may equally say that the pie tastes bad. The statements are expressions of value, not factual observations that can be independently investigated.

Moral statements are value judgments. The claim that “murder is bad” is nothing more than an expression of an individual’s values. Values come from a variety of sources, including biology (there is a biological drive towards empathy that we can observe in other social animals), reason (deciding to value certain things based on context and experience), tradition (societies passing down values that have proven useful), training (individuals internalizing values they learn at a young age), and probably other sources.

The vast majority of people in a society are going to share the same basic value set, for obvious reasons. As a result, a society can use reason to decide upon rules that promote the values that most of its members have. That’s why, for example, murder is almost universally considered “bad” and made illegal everywhere.

But the reality of the matter is that murder isn’t “bad” outside of a consciousness that deems it bad. If you claim that it is, then you have to claim that there’s some kind of supernatural consciousness that sets the values for everybody, and that is a magical claim for which there is no evidence. You’d have to produce evidence for that claim if you want someone to take it seriously.

1. What are the implications if morality is purely subjective?

The implication is that people follow their values. Which is exactly what people do anyway.

Please note that nothing about what I have said means that we can’t make value judgments about other values. “I detest murder and those who value murder” is itself a value statement, and I would be perfectly consistent with my values if I – and everyone else who shares this value – come to an agreement that we are going to lock up anyone who commits murder.

I can’t quantify Sair’s comments except to say that she disagrees with AntiTheist about whether all things are permissible.

If I recall, Sair was arguing that not all things are permissible in the context of a society that shares the same basic value set. If I am wrong, please correct me.

 

[hatsoff]

All right, let’s try this again. There are two questions I would like to address based on the assumption that God does not exist:

1. Can morality objectively exist or is all morality subjective?
2. What are the implications if morality is purely subjective?

The answers to both of those questions really depends on what you mean by morality. For example, if you are referring to a divine code of conduct laid down by a creator-deity, then sure, such a code could potentially exist. However, an unbeliever such as myself would point out that he can find no good reason to believe such a code has actually been given.

If you don’t mean a divine code of conduct, then what do you mean by “morality,” and related terms?

 

[Garyjohn2]

Morality, operating under the assumption that God does not exist, is purely subjective.

What would that mean? It would mean it can (and would) change, from year to year, from generation to generation. Eventually, it would lead to the collapse of society as people increasingly gave in to their base urges over the millenia. Constant feuding and dark ages would result in my opinion.

And, since it’s pretty hard to post on a catholic forum without some mention of God, I have to say that acknowledging His existence gives us ideals to aspire to, a moral compass to follow, and a guide for our souls and behaviour that can be referred to throughout the ages. It keeps humanity on track.

I’m thinking long term here. Day-to-day moral consequences would be harder to detect and speculate upon.

 

[vz71]

Morality exists.

Every value judgement made anywhere (from the decision to copy copyrighted song material or not to the decision to abort a child or not) is testimony to morality existing.

What are the implications if morality is purely subjective?

Somewhere along the way a given moral standard is going to have to be agreed upon as the one people will follow, lest there be chaos.
For Catholics, it is God’s will has handed to us through the church and the magistarium.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Moral laws exist in the same sense that physics laws exist. There was a time when the laws of physics were nothing but subjective presumption. Then one day, someone discovered a way to measure one of them and the world changed.

The ONLY problem concerning the realization of morality is that no one is measuring it other than by that same subjective way as they use to do with physics (or merely following what someone famous has said).

All it really takes is defining what “moral” means in clear objective terms. Until then, like all arguments, they go on endlessly and pointlessly.

 

[AntiTheist]

Garyjohn2:

Eventually, [the non-existence of morality] would lead to the collapse of society as people increasingly gave in to their base urges over the millenia. Constant feuding and dark ages would result in my opinion.

This is pretty much a textbook slippery slope fallacy. As I explained, people’s behavior is dictated by values, not some supernatural rules. If there aren’t supernatural rules – and there aren’t – then people would simply act in accordance with their values – which they do.

Humans haven’t destroyed civilization yet. Now maybe one day people will, but if they do, it will be because they followed their values, not because of the absence of supernatural rules.

And, since it’s pretty hard to post on a catholic forum without some mention of God, I have to say that acknowledging His existence gives us ideals to aspire to, a moral compass to follow, and a guide for our souls and behaviour that can be referred to throughout the ages. It keeps humanity on track.

You can still have ideals without believing in super-beings.

vz71:

Every value judgement made anywhere (from the decision to copy copyrighted song material or not to the decision to abort a child or not) is testimony to morality existing.

Did you even read my post? How does the existence of value judgments indicate the existence of morality?

James S Saint:

The ONLY problem concerning the realization of morality is that no one is measuring it other than by that same subjective way as they use to do with physics

You can demonstrate that gravity exists. Similarly demonstrate that morality exists. You can’t do it because morality is a fairy tale.

 

[Luke_K]

You can demonstrate that gravity exists. Similarly demonstrate that morality exists. You can’t do it because morality is a fairy tale.

You cannot demonstrate that gravity exists. You can only observe phenomena and presume that there is an over-arching “law” that those phenomena, all the ones previously, and all the ones to come will follow, all throughout the universe. The “law” of gravity is just a mathematical model.

Similarly, we can formulate a moral model for the way humans should act, presuming that there is an over-arching law concerning morality. We could determine if it is worthwhile by testing it in society and seeing if it works. It is my experience that the Catholic moral model works when tested correctly and fairly. It works for me and a lot of people I know, anyways.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*You can demonstrate that gravity exists. Similarly demonstrate that morality exists. You can’t do it because morality is a fairy tale. *

Can you prove scientifically that morality is a fairy tale? Ahem, can you prove scientifically that fairies exist?

If morality is defined as distinguishing between right and wrong actions, it would be fair to say that all fairy tales deal with morality. But it would not be fair to say that the morals they deal with exists only in some “fairy” world beyond human experience. Fairy tales teach us not how to be good fairies, but how to be good humans.

Anyone on trial for serial rape or murder might very well suppose he is in a surrealistic situation; but the judge and jury are dead serious, and they acknowledge the reality of evil even if the immoralist has excused himself on the grounds that all morality is a fairy tale.

Whether one denies the law of gravity or of morality, one pays a real and hurtful price.

 

[AntiTheist]

Ahem, can you prove scientifically that fairies exist?

No, that’s the point. I can’t disprove a fairy story, but I can point out that there’s no evidence for fairies or the tales associated with them.

Anyone on trial for serial rape or murder might very well suppose he is in a surrealistic situation; but the judge and jury are dead serious, and they acknowledge the reality of evil even if the immoralist has excused himself on the grounds that all morality is a fairy tale.

Again, I acknowledge that laws exist, and they exist in accord with the basic values of a great deal of the population. I am disputing that these values correspond to anything outside of human consciousness.

As always, reading my earlier post – it’s the second in the thread – clarifies things.

 

[Luke_K]

Again, I acknowledge that laws exist, and they exist in accord with the basic values of a great deal of the population. I am disputing that these values correspond to anything outside of human consciousness.

One could dispute that physical laws exist outside our consciousness. Can you prove to me that the laws of physics aren’t just the result of scientists poking at my brain in a jar?

 

[AntiTheist]

One could dispute that physical laws exist outside our consciousness.

My observation about factual statements and value judgments applies to the reality that we experience – regardless of whether it’s the matrix or reality.

There are some statements that have truth value – that can be investigated and determined to be true or false in relation to the context of the reality that we experience – and there are some statements that are expressions of value – that cannot be investigated or said to be true or false

 

[Luke_K]

My observation about factual statements and value judgments applies to the reality that we experience – regardless of whether it’s the matrix or reality.

There are some statements that have truth value – that can be investigated and determined to be true or false in relation to the context of the reality that we experience – and there are some statements that are expressions of value – that cannot be investigated or said to be true or false

But if you believe that all that is real is physical, isn’t a value judgment just the result of chemicals in our brains interacting, and thus in principle able to be investigated? In principle, in your view couldn’t one investigate the brain of a man who says, “I like pie” and see if his body releases the “desire” chemical when he thinks of pie? (I’m just trying to understand what your view is.)

 

[AntiTheist]

But if you believe that all that is real is physical, isn’t a value judgment just the result of chemicals in our brains interacting, and thus in principle able to be investigated? In principle, in your view couldn’t one investigate the brain of a man who says, “I like pie” and see if his body releases the “desire” chemical when he thinks of pie? (I’m just trying to understand what your view is.)

Oh I see what you’re saying. This is a very good question.

The statement “That pie tastes good” is a value statement that has no truth value (i.e. it is neither true nor false). The statement, “I am a person who thinks that that pie tastes good” is a factual statement that can be investigated in the way that you’re suggesting.

So yes, a value judgment is indeed just the result of chemicals in our brains interacting and thus a fact. But the content of the value judgment (i.e. that something is important or good or bad) isn’t a fact.

Now, in everyday life, we can’t go around measuring chemicals in people’s brains, and we don’t need to. We can grant certain things, like granting that people who claim to feel X and also act as if X were true very likely do feel X.

 

[Luke_K]

Oh I see what you’re saying. This is a very good question.

The statement “That pie tastes good” is a value statement that has no truth value (i.e. it is neither true nor false). The statement, “I am a person who thinks that that pie tastes good” is a factual statement that can be investigated in the way that you’re suggesting.

So yes, a value judgment is indeed just the result of chemicals in our brains interacting and thus a fact. But the content of the value judgment (i.e. that something is important or good or bad) isn’t a fact.

Now, in everyday life, we can’t go around measuring chemicals in people’s brains, and we don’t need to. We can grant certain things, like granting that people who claim to feel X and also act as if X were true very likely do feel X.

Do you think that people “should” act a certain way regardless of your and their value judgments?

 

[AntiTheist]

Do you think that people “should” act a certain way regardless of your and their value judgments?

Like Hume, I don’t think that you can actually obtain a valid “should” statement from an “is” statement.

I have ways that I’d like other people to act (and those are value judgments…I like it when people act like X), and I have certain ways of compelling that – like, for example, banding together with other people who have similar values and setting up rules – but outside of the context of those rules, there’s nothing that compels anyone to act any way in particular.

Again, remember that the majority of people in a given society will have the same set of basic values – that’s how values work. The vast majority of people value, for example, living in a society where murder is illegal. That’s not an arbitrary decision – thousands of years of civilization have resulted in that being a basic value.

Now I can’t speak for you, but I know that the primary reason that I don’t go around murdering everyone I see is that I have absolutely zero desire to do that. The thought doesn’t even occur to me. And if I ever did have the desire to murder, my values are such that I would probably seek psychiatric help before ever seriously considering acting on it. And if I ever felt an overwhelming urge to do it, my estimation of my character is that I would probably be too timid – too afraid of the consequences for my personal freedom – to ever act on such an urge.

None of this has anything to do with “should.” It’s all a weighing of values and urges against options.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Perhaps we need to regroup and remind ourselves that this thread is not about whimsical choices between things we like and things we don’t like, but between things that are right to do and things that are wrong to do.

Murder is a case in point. There are universal laws against it among human beings. Those who defy the laws do so at their own risk, just as those who defy the laws of gravity do so at their own risk.

When people fraudulantly solicit money to assist the people in Haiti, their action are despicable and there is nothing whimsical about that moral judgment against them. “Thou shalt not steal.” That is a case of objective immorality. The fact that you cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint in the exterior world the force that sustains that objective immorality no more invalidates the objectivity of that morality than the fact that you cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact material source (or even identity) of the force called gravity that sustains all things in the order of nature.

Anyone who says that a moral law, to be allowed as an objective reality, has to exist in the physical world, should remember (if he is a materialist) that everything is material. And therefore moral laws exist in the material world. Again, they can be defied, but only at the same risk and peril that all physical laws are defied.

The question is not so much whether all moral laws are subjective because different moral codes are found in different societies and different individuals, but rather whether they are different because different societies and different individuals have not adequately or fully grasped the objective moral order.

Different societies have historically had different ways of acccounting for the origin of the world. Not all of those societies contradicting each other can be equally true. Yet one of them, or a collection of them, might be closer to an objective truth than all the others. So it is with morality. We may have different moral codes, but that doesn’t mean all these codes are equally true; some may be half true, or very nearly as close to the truth as you can get.

The criteria for judging the best and truest morality ought to be established. Is the moral code that says we should all love one another and do good to each other objectively closer to a true morality than the moral code that says we should do unto others before they do it unto us?

Christ thought it did. No other teacher has made it the centerpiece of all his teachings, and proved it with the giving of his own life that we may know and live the truth.

 

[Betterave]

All right, let’s try this again. There are two questions I would like to address based on the assumption that God does not exist:

1. Can morality objectively exist or is all morality subjective?
2. What are the implications if morality is purely subjective?

1. False dichotomy: subjective and objective are not mutually exclusive categories.
2. There are no implications - you haven’t defined your terms well enough for there to be any implications. (Word up James.)

 

[James_S_Saint]

What is it that says murder is “wrong”?

A) Scriptures (Word of God)
B) Dislike of it
C) Social laws
D) Tradition
E) what no one is yet seeing?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

All right, let’s try this again. There are two questions I would like to address based on the assumption that God does not exist:

1. Can morality objectively exist or is all morality subjective?
2. What are the implications if morality is purely subjective?

We just had the thread closed where this discussion was going on and I’m pretty sure it’s because we couldn’t stay on topic so let’s be clear: no discussion of Christianity or any other religion that teaches that God exists is relevant. As stated in the Forum rules: if you want to discuss something other than the topic of this thread, start your own thread.

I’ll include some relevant comments from the other thread to hopefully get this started. I don’t mean to take liberties with what anyone has said so if I misrepresent the views of the person I’m quoting, please correct me.

Sair: "The notion that all things are permissible in the absence of a god is false …"
*
Oreoracle: “moral claims possess no truth value.”

*AntiTheist: “*I completely agree that anything and everything is permissible in the sense that you mean it”

*My understanding of this is that AntiTheist’s answers to my questions are: morality is purely subjective, and there is no moral reason not to do anything one wants to do. I think Oreoracle is saying that morality is subjective but no conclusion can be drawn about what (to him) this implies. I can’t quantify Sair’s comments except to say that she disagrees with AntiTheist about whether all things are permissible.

Ender

1. there is no such thing as morality. there is only opinion.
2. G-d is the only being with the legitimate authority to impose a morality.
3. G-ds legitimate authority stems from the rights of an inventor, Creator, owner. rights we commonly recognize in our legal systems.
4. thus, the only opinion that counts is G-ds.

ergo, while there are no glowing platonic forms in the sky, demanding a certain morality from us. there is a de facto “objective morality”

there is Right and Wrong, Good and Evil. the standard then is based on G-ds legitimate authority to impose a de facto objective morality on His creations.

so yes there is a legitimate standard of right and wrong behavior. that standard is laid out in the Scriptures, and the legitimate interpreter of the Scriptures is the Church that Christ founded. the Roman Catholic Church.