Does morality exist?

[Betterave]

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.

Based on the assumption that the OP made (that God doesn’t exist), this post is not a response to the OP.

(The answer to question 1 is: false dichotomy, but yes, morality can still objectively exist.)

 

[AntiTheist]

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.

I don’t think that our values are whimsical. As I explained, our values aren’t randomly or arbitrarily chosen – we didn’t wake up one day and say, on a whim, I’m going to value a society where people don’t kill each other. It took centuries of civilization to shape the values that all of us today take for granted.

There’s nothing whimsical about them. And yet, they are completely subjective. They’re value judgmments.

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.

No one is disputing that humans have set up laws against murder. Your equation of human laws with laws of nature is merely an assertion based on an equivocation of the word “law.” There is no evidence that human laws are anything but the reflection of subjective values, as I have outlined.

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.

See? There are your values at work. There’s nothing “whimsical” about such a judgment. Like most people in this society, you value a society where honesty in transactions is maintained. All the same, that value depends entirely on the minds of people.

The fact that you cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint in the exterior world the force that sustains that objective immorality …]

More like the fact that we cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint that moral statements are exterior to people’s minds at all. We can’t do that because they are, in fact, value judgments.

everything is material. And therefore moral laws exist in the material world.

Come on. Seriously? Are unicorns material? I’m thinking of one right now, and thought is material brain activity, so by your logic, unicorns exist in the material world.

In actuality, the thoughts are real (as they are, indeed, brain activity), but the question here is whether those thoughts correspond to something outside of the thought.

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?

Well, this is a good question for believers in morality. How do you go about deciding that one moral system is better than another? It seems that all you have to go on is assertion (“here’s the divine answer provided by the god I believe in on the basis of faith only”).

Let’s say someone came along and had a different divine code. Like a Hindu who comes with the divine law that you shall not eat cows. Or a Muslim who thinks that it is morally right to make a pilgrimage to some foreign country. Or some new street corner prophet with the commandment that “thou shalt do unto others before they do unto you.” How are you going to demonstrate that you’re the one who’s right and that they’re the ones who are wrong? Any objection that you mount is going to have to be based on your values or upon a warm, fuzzy feeling in the pit of your stomach.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Any objection that you mount is going to have to be based on your values or upon a warm, fuzzy feeling in the pit of your stomach.

Not to everyone, but to the blind all things are subjective conjecture.

 

[Ender]

Based on the criteria I specified in the first post - God does not exist - I think that AntiTheist’s position is correct. If morality can exist objectively I have not heard any suggestion as to how that can be. That is, if God exists then morality can be objectively true, but if God does not exist then morality is purely subjective and is nothing more than personal preference.

Betterave: Something can have both objective and subjective meaning; in that sense they are not mutually exclusive. What I was asking is whether (absent God) morality has any objective meaning at all. The implications of that are just what AntiTheist said: morality is mere opinion. Killing a person is no less moral than swatting a fly because morality exists solely in the mind of the individual.

Ender

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

It took centuries of civilization to shape the values that all of us today take for granted.
What proof do you have of this? Were you present at the dawn of human consciousness? I’m rather inclined to believe that murder was recognized immediately by the first men and women precisely for what it is: a violation of the human right to live.
*
There is no evidence that human laws are anything but the reflection of subjective values,*
Where is your evidence that human laws are merely subjective values? If you are going to demand evidence, you ought to be willing to supply it.

*In actuality, the thoughts are real (as they are, indeed, brain activity), but the question here is whether those thoughts correspond to something outside of the thought. *

Yes, they correspond to the right or wrong actions performed, just as the objective law of gravity corresponds to the various **real **actions it exerts.

*Well, this is a good question for believers in morality. How do you go about deciding that one moral system is better than another? It seems that all you have to go on is assertion (“here’s the divine answer provided by the god I believe in on the basis of faith only”). *

We go about deciding it in two ways: by revelation or by reason. The atheist does not accept revelation, but it should not surprise him to realize that the law of love preached by Jesus is better than the law of hate preached by others. That is, he should be able to realize that what Jesus taught about love is eminently reasonable. Not only is it reasonable, most people when they hear the words of Jesus sense immediately the sweet reasonableness of those words.

*Any objection that you mount is going to have to be based on your values or upon a warm, fuzzy feeling in the pit of your stomach. *

Agreed. A morality that produces such a sensation ought to be recognized as one of the better sorts of morality. That is not inconsistent with noting also the sweet reasonableness of such a morality.

Are you of the belief that no moral value corresponds to the real world?

When two people look at the same act and both call it immoral, and a thousand more people look at that same act and call it immoral, why isn’t it fair to say that their judgment corresponds to the “rightness” or “wrongness” of the same physical event? Are you saying that those 1002 people do not see the world outside themselves as it really is? If so, what is your basis for saying so?

 

[AntiTheist]

The implications of that are just what AntiTheist said: morality is mere opinion. Killing a person is no less moral than swatting a fly because morality exists solely in the mind of the individual.

Yes. The assertion “X is immoral” is a value judgment, and it is neither true nor false.

Again, though, values can’t be equated with “mere opinion.” Many of our values are rooted in societal practices that are thousands of years old and traditions and ideas that we absorbed at a very young age. To call values “opinion” is to miss the point.

If morality can exist objectively I have not heard any suggestion as to how that can be.

I have heard atheists argue that given the context of a shared value, it is possible to argue that an action – or group of actions – are best suited towards fulfilling that value and that this constitutes the objective “best” actions within that framework. A lot of them use the word “morality” to describe this idea. And while I think the idea is all well and good, I object to using the word “morality” to describe it.

But if some atheists say that morality objectively exists, that’s probably what they mean: that within a system of shared values – and most societies do have a relatively well-defined common pool of values (which, again, are not “whimsical” or chosen arbitrarily) – certain actions can be said to be “objectively” better at bringing about those values.

 

[AntiTheist]

Where is your evidence that human laws are merely subjective values? If you are going to demand evidence, you ought to be willing to supply it.

Again, I’m not the one making the extraordinary claim here. The idea that something is “better” than something else logically requires a standard by which it can be deemed “better.” I submit that the standard is that which we know exists: human value judgments. If you want to claim that certain things are “better” than others for all people (regardless of value judgments), then you have to claim that the standard is something other than human value judgments. Your only recourse is to appeal to supernatural value judgments, and now you’re in the realm of extraordinary claims that demand extraordinary evidence.

The atheist does not accept revelation, but it should not surprise him to realize that the law of love preached by Jesus is better than the law of hate preached by others. That is, he should be able to realize that what Jesus taught about love is eminently reasonable.

So Jesus’ morality is reasonable because you say so. Got it. The Hindu down the street is trying that same argument for the morality of Krishna: “it should seem reasonable to you!” Very convincing.

Agreed. A morality that produces such a sensation ought to be recognized as one of the better sorts of morality. That is not inconsistent with noting also the sweet reasonableness of such a morality.

Wow. I got him to say it. I actually am a little surprised.

You seriously think that the way that you feel emotionally is a sensible basis for deciding facts about the external world? What if someone had a warm fuzzy feeling thinking about the Hindu system of morality or a “look out for number one” morality? Would that also make it correct or “reasonable”?

When two people look at the same act and both call it immoral, and a thousand more people look at that same act and call it immoral, why isn’t it fair to say that their judgment corresponds to the “rightness” or “wrongness” of the same physical event?

Because the number of people who think something has no bearing on its truth. Millions of people used to argue that slavery was morally right. Are you going to tell me that millions of people can’t be wrong, so slavery must be right after all? Or are you saying that all those people could have been perceiving the world incorrectly? Oh, say it ain’t so!

Your entire argument is nothing but warm and fuzzy feelings with a side order of assertion.

 

[Magnanimity]

Based on the criteria I specified in the first post - God does not exist - I think that AntiTheist’s position is correct. If morality can exist objectively I have not heard any suggestion as to how that can be. That is, if God exists then morality can be objectively true, but if God does not exist then morality is purely subjective and is nothing more than personal preference.

Betterave: Something can have both objective and subjective meaning; in that sense they are not mutually exclusive. What I was asking is whether (absent God) morality has any objective meaning at all…

Ender,

Since the only real opposition you’re getting in this thread is from AntiTheist, who is advocating a rather weak moral theory, I don’t think that atheistic moral realism is getting a fair shake here. I have to take issue with your assertion above.

Morality can definitely exist as something which is intrinsic to the universe, independent of any link to religion. I think you all are trying to prove too much here. It seems as if you’re trying to force people into the following conditional: If you do not believe in God then objective moral values do not exist. I don’t see how that’s true at all.

I see nothing incompatible about being an atheist and an Aristotelian, for example, when it comes to morality. Or a Kantian rationalist, even. Ender, in response to your challenge, I would simply ask: what does religion have to do with either an Aristotelian moral system or a Kantian one, both of which affirm the objectivity of morality (albeit in different ways)?

I think you’re greatly overstepping things here.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Morality can definitely exist as something which is intrinsic to the universe, independent of any link to religion. I think you all are trying to prove too much here. It seems as if you’re trying to force people into the following conditional: If you do not believe in God then objective moral values do not exist. I don’t see how that’s true at all.

I agree, Magnanimity. Moral realism can be true absent God. However, in such a universe, moral rules would be strictly voluntary. This is Kant’s old problem: even if Kantian ethics are true, why should we obey them?

 

[vz71]

vz71: Did you even read my post?

Yes actually. My apologies if I did not get out of it what you intended to write into it.

How does the existence of value judgments indicate the existence of morality?

The value of one behavior over another indicates such.

 

[vz71]

I don’t think that our values are whimsical. As I explained, our values aren’t randomly or arbitrarily chosen – we didn’t wake up one day and say, on a whim, I’m going to value a society where people don’t kill each other. It took centuries of civilization to shape the values that all of us today take for granted.

There’s nothing whimsical about them. And yet, they are completely subjective. They’re value judgmments.

That very fact makes them a moral code.

 

[vz71]

Not to everyone, but to the blind all things are subjective conjecture.

……

 

[Magnanimity]

However, in such a universe, moral rules would be strictly voluntary. This is Kant’s old problem: even if Kantian ethics are true, why should we obey them?

…maybe. Let’s take two individuals, one of whom is a Catholic Aristotelian in her ethics, and the other of whom is an atheistic Aristotelian in his ethics. What, besides the infused, or “theological,” virtues, does she have that he doesn’t have, as regards the ‘ought’ of ethics? She may have extra motivation to be good, which is borne out of her religious commitments, but in the end she and he both hold to a non-relative virtue ethic. And their reasons for inculcating the virtues, which lead to habit formation, which in turn lead to character-becoming a good person-are largely the same.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

…maybe. Let’s take two individuals, one of whom is a Catholic Aristotelian in her ethics, and the other of whom is an atheistic Aristotelian in his ethics. What, besides the infused, or “theological,” virtues, does she have that he doesn’t have, as regards the ‘ought’ of ethics? She may have extra motivation to be good, which is borne out of her religious commitments, but in the end she and he both hold to a non-relative virtue ethic. And their reasons for inculcating the virtues, which lead to habit formation, which in turn lead to character-becoming a good person-are largely the same.

Well, of course, it’s a matter of this: *why *be moral? This is the dilemma of Plato’s Republic, to which there is only one good answer that I know of: Morality leads to some irreplaceable, intrinsic good. But what irreplaceable good?

(Note: If morality does not lead to some good, then it is irrational. This is another way of phrasing Kant’s problem. Aristotle, sensibly, would have said that morality does lead to good).

This good must exist either a) in this life, or b) beyond this life. If it exists in this life, then it would seem logical that immoral people would be unhappy, and moral people happy. But this is not what we see. Now you could follow Plato here, and claim that moral people are always *really *happier than immoral people, even though they sometimes don’t look it. But that argument seems implausible.

The existence or nonexistence of an afterlife makes all the difference. Even Plato came to realize this, with his ideas about reincarnation.

Perhaps we should say that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. But why should we say this? Would any sane man choose knowledge and misery over ignorance and happiness? This is the Dostoevskian challenge to Godless ethics, and I do not know of any adequate answer.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Would any sane man choose knowledge and misery over ignorance and happiness? This is the Dostoevskian challenge to Godless ethics, and I do not know of any adequate answer.

The answer lies in to what each leads. The “purpose” in anything is found only in the future it brings. If no particular future is sought, then no morality is relevant. But if no particular future is sought, then why think at all? Why even ask?

 

[Betterave]

Well, of course, it’s a matter of this: *why *be moral? This is the dilemma of Plato’s Republic, to which there is only one good answer that I know of: Morality leads to some irreplaceable, intrinsic good. But what irreplaceable good?

(Note: If morality does not lead to some good, then it is irrational. This is another way of phrasing Kant’s problem. Aristotle, sensibly, would have said that morality does lead to good).

“Mankind does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that.”

• Nietzsche

If we are moral by nature (whether in a Kantian reason-centred or an Aristotelian character-centred sense), the question “why be moral?” is senseless. It’s like saying “why be human?”

Ask yourself this: why is it irrational to be irrational? (Then, if it’s not immediately obvious, try to think about the point of asking yourself such a question.)

 

[Betterave]

Based on the criteria I specified in the first post - God does not exist - I think that AntiTheist’s position is correct. If morality can exist objectively I have not heard any suggestion as to how that can be. That is, if God exists then morality can be objectively true, but if God does not exist then morality is purely subjective and is nothing more than personal preference.

Betterave: Something can have both objective and subjective meaning; in that sense they are not mutually exclusive. What I was asking is whether (absent God) morality has any objective meaning at all. The implications of that are just what AntiTheist said: morality is mere opinion. Killing a person is no less moral than swatting a fly because morality exists solely in the mind of the individual.

Ender

Mag has already pointed out the very basic inadequacy and naivete of your and Anti’s position, but let me just add that you’re missing the point. Objectivity is *always *the objectivity *of *(belonging to) a subject. The subject is *the original ground *of objectivity. “Purely subjective” (whatever you take that little phrase to mean) is a radically different concept from “purely a matter of personal preference.”

 

[AntiTheist]

Would any sane man choose knowledge and misery over ignorance and happiness?

Humans aren’t primarily driven by reason – they’re primarily driven by values, which, as I have indicated, are not rational.

 

[Ender]

I have to take issue with your assertion above.

My reason for starting this thread is to fully discuss the questions I asked and I asked the questions because I am unsure of the answers. I make an assertion to put a stake in the ground at a specific place to find out if I have put it in the right place or if I have to move it. Right now, that place is right next to where AntiTheist has his.

Morality can definitely exist as something which is intrinsic to the universe, independent of any link to religion.

OK, defend that assertion; explain how that can be.

I think you all are trying to prove too much here. It seems as if you’re trying to force people into the following conditional: If you do not believe in God then objective moral values do not exist. I don’t see how that’s true at all.

If God does not exist then what is the source of objective morality? We don’t believe animals can behave morally; we simply don’t apply that term to their actions but if there is no morality for them how is it that there can be morality for humans? I’m not trying to force people to do anything other than logically address the questions I raised.

I see nothing incompatible about being an atheist and an Aristotelian, for example, when it comes to morality. Or a Kantian rationalist, even.

I don’t know anything about either system. If you think one of them serves your purpose then use it to explain the source of objective morality.

Ender, in response to your challenge, I would simply ask: what does religion have to do with either an Aristotelian moral system or a Kantian one, both of which affirm the objectivity of morality (albeit in different ways)?

Nope, I won’t address that because religion is irrelevant to this discussion. Remember my one criterion for this debate: God does not exist.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Mag has already pointed out the very basic inadequacy and naivete of your and Anti’s position, but let me just add that you’re missing the point. Objectivity is *always *the objectivity *of *(belonging to) a subject. The subject is *the original ground *of objectivity.

I’m not interested in debating the etymology of terms. If you think I’m using objective and subjective incorrectly then supply your own terms but since everyone (else) seems to understand the distinction being made, and in the absence of anything better, those words will have to serve.

“Purely subjective” (whatever you take that little phrase to mean) is a radically different concept from “purely a matter of personal preference.”

I recognize that words have subjective meanings that vary from person to person and that we don’t actually choose those meanings based on personal preference. Nonetheless, the way it is being used in this discussion is to mean precisely that. As I said, if you have better terms for the concepts with which we are dealing, let’s hear them.

Ender