Does morality exist?

[Ender]

huh?..Lions are not moral creatures making moral claims. Nor does morality, if it exists, apply to lions. Totally disanalogous.

The argument here is whether objective morality exists in a universe without God. I agree that lions are not moral creatures (in either universe) but my point for bringing them up was to address your assumption that morality is implied by consistent behavior between societies. Given that lions behave consistently between prides why is your argument any less applicable to them? I know it is silly to contend that lion behavior can be immoral but I am addressing the applicability of your argument.

Your* flat-out refusal * earlier to research into the Categorical Imperative and Utilitarian Ethics is evidence of laxity and stubbornness.

No. I am interested only in what you believe and what position you are willing to defend. Everything else is irrelevant.

It is very improbable that people would consistently engage in the behavior of making what they take to be objective moral claims throughout history if objective morality didn’t exist.

Perhaps, but it is also true that most people throughout history also believed in a god (or gods) who were in fact the lawgivers. That is, they believed in objective morality because they believed in God. We are trying to address whether those beliefs would hold up in a universe where it was known that God does not exist.

I consider the previous objection a pretty strong one but I will ignore it for now and address the points you raise and see if a good case can be made for the existence of objective morality based on a study of historical behavior.

The obeisance to and regular practice of engaging in ethics, law, and statements of value show that people take morality as basic fundamental part of human behavior, culture, and religion. This phenomenon very strongly suggests that it is more likely that objective morality exists than that it doesn’t exist.

Let’s take the law. Why would laws per se be indicative of morality any more than the rules of golf? It is unquestionably necessary for there to be peaceful interactions between people that there be rules to govern them, but as I said this also applies to games. We have laws prohibiting murder, sodomy, and speeding. What general rule can we apply that allows us to distinguish between those that pertain to morality and those that do not?

Unanimous agreement **that **there are moral principles is one kind of evidence that objective morality exists. Unanimous agreement on which moral principles are the correct ones is not necessarily evidence that those are, in fact, the correct ones.

As was pointed out earlier, if you cannot know which moral principles are true then their existence is meaningless.

Ender

 

[Leela]

I do not accept this and see no reason why I should. Given a godless universe, the evolution of every creature would really be utterly accidental and, on that basis, I don’t know why we should accept that a human life is any more precious than that of a banana slug.
Yes, I understand the use of axioms; that’s why I started this discussion with the axiom that God does not exist. Acceptance of your axiom pretty much nullifies the significance of mine and that’s not the discussion I want to have. To me, the significance of a universe without God is that it is not possible to conclude that human life is precious.

Ender

Again, this is fake doubt. You actually do believe that life is precious, so there is no point in me trying to convince you that it is.

If your question in the OP boils down to whether or not morality could have any meaning if human life is not precious, then the simple answer is that morality would have no meaning; however, as I’ve said many times, human life is precious. I assert this as an axiom. You will generally find those who do not accept this axiom in prison. We who do accept this axion must keep such people there.

 

[Ender]

I already told you my own answer:
An act X is immoral because God decreed that it is. That is, some entities have their moral obligatory status in virtue of them being acts of the Divine Will.

This debate is about a universe where there is no God to decree anything and I am asking for you to explain why X is immoral in that universe, not why it would be immoral in ours.

If they believed that it was also morally permissible to torture people for fun, and not merely just a matter of amusement, then yes, this would be evidence that objective morality exists. But it would not be evidence that torturing people for fun was morally permissable. I strongly recommend getting this distinction clear.

I understand the distinction but you have a real problem here. In a world where everyone accepted that torture as entertainment was moral how could it possibly not in fact be moral? Why would universal agreement of the morality of torture be evidence of objective morality but not be evidence that this was a specific example of a morally permissible act? If universal agreement has general meaning then why does it not have specific meaning, and if it has no specific meaning then where is specific meaning to be found?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Again, this is fake doubt. You actually do believe that life is precious, so there is no point in me trying to convince you that it is.

Of course I believe human life is precious, but in my case it is because I also believe that God created man. In a universe where God does not exist I have no basis on which to believe that man is in fact precious.

as I’ve said many times, human life is precious. I assert this as an axiom.

We live in different moral universes. I in my universe and you in yours believe many of the same things even though we base those beliefs on very different axioms. The problem I am causing you is, like the atheist who challenges my belief in the existence of God, I am suggesting that there is no rational basis for the axiom on which your moral system rests.

Ender

 

[Leela]

Of course I believe human life is precious, but in my case it is because I also believe that God created man. In a universe where God does not exist I have no basis on which to believe that man is in fact precious.

We live in different moral universes. I in my universe and you in yours believe many of the same things even though we base those beliefs on very different axioms. The problem I am causing you is, like the atheist who challenges my belief in the existence of God, I am suggesting that there is no rational basis for the axiom on which your moral system rests.

Ender

A moral system that rests on an axiom such as “human life is precious” is on as strong a foundation as a philosophical system that rests upon the law of noncontradiction.

 

[Ender]

A moral system that rests on an axiom such as “human life is precious” is on as strong a foundation as a philosophical system that rests upon the law of noncontradiction.

Wouldn’t the axiom “human life is not precious” provide a foundation equally as strong? Let me ask this: do you contend that everyone is somehow compelled to accept your axiom or is everyone equally free to construct his own?

Ender

 

[Leela]

Wouldn’t the axiom “human life is not precious” provide a foundation equally as strong? Let me ask this: do you contend that everyone is somehow compelled to accept your axiom or is everyone equally free to construct his own?

Ender

Everyone is free to accept this axiom or not just as everyone is free to accept the law of noncontradiction or not (in which case I suppose they could simultaneously accept and not accept it.)

We are not completely free because we have to face the consequences of our choices.

 

[Syntax]

This debate is about a universe where there is no God to decree anything and I am asking for you to explain why X is immoral in that universe, not why it would be immoral in ours.

Then you are just contradicting my own view, Ender. I think action X would not be moral/immoral without God to decree that it is. You are not make this critical distinction concerning the questions below.

This thread concerns at least 3 separate questions:

(1) If morality exists, what reason do we have for thinking it does independent of the hypothesis that God exists?–This is an epistemic question: “How do we know morality exists?”

(2) How do we know action X is moral/immoral?–another epistemic question: "How do we know this or that action is moral/immoral?

(3) What **makes action **X moral/immoral?–this is an ethical and metaphysical question, the answer to which will ground all moral judgments making them true or false.

You asked me question 3. And I answered. No God, no right/wrong. This is the Divine Command Theory of Ethics. In a world without God, ethical judgments are neither true nor false. This is precisely why noncognitivism is so appealing to some atheists!!

So I have not cited the existence of God as my epistemic reason for believing action X is immoral. I said God’s decree that it is, makes action X immoral.

I understand the distinction but you have a real problem here. In a world where everyone accepted that torture as entertainment was moral how could it possibly not in fact be moral?

If God does not exist in that universe, then action X would be neither right nor wrong.

Why would universal agreement of the morality of torture be evidence of objective morality but not be evidence that this was a specific example of a morally permissible act?

…because if morality didn’t exist, human beings fundamental acts of making what they take to be morally objective judgments every day would be incredibly unlikely.

Again, don’t confuse **how we know **whether morality exists and what makes action X moral/immoral.

If universal agreement has general meaning then why does it not have specific meaning, and if it has no specific meaning then where is specific meaning to be found?

Understanding specific meanings are neither necessary nor sufficient for understanding general meanings. This should be obvious. I can have a general understanding of the concept of a “cat” independent of particular conceptions about about particular height, color, and species. In fact, no general meanings, no specific meanings. General concepts about cats are what makes communication possible about various differences in particular cats in the first place.

 

[Syntax]

Why would universal agreement of the morality of torture be evidence of objective morality but not be evidence that this was a specific example of a morally permissible act?

…because if morality didn’t exist, human beings fundamental acts of making what they take to be morally objective judgments every day would be incredibly unlikely.

However, universal agreement that action X is morally permissible/impermissible is not necessarily a reason for thinking that action X is morally permissible. The reason is that large groups of people can believe heinous things. So we have to appeal to other good/bad making properties of objects as a reason for believing why one action is right, the other wrong.

We are eventually going to stop somewhere with our justificatory reasons for believing this or that. That’s why moral principles must be understood as axioms. To just deny, for instance, that happiness is a good thing because there is no further reason for believiing this axiom, is just asking too much from ethics which it cannot perform. But for the same reason, I wouldn’t ask for a justification for thinking the Law of non-contradiction were true. It just is.

 

[Syntax]

Wouldn’t the axiom “human life is not precious” provide a foundation equally as strong? Let me ask this: do you contend that everyone is somehow compelled to accept your axiom or is everyone equally free to construct his own?

Not at all! If “human life is not precious” were an axiom, your own world would be turned upside down and it would have dire consequences for your life. So it is not a very constructive axiom to believe. Anyone is free to believe it, but you’ll be locked up in jail for it. Just as anyone is free to believe that the opposite of the law of non-contradiction is true, namely, that contradictions are perfectly permissible–but then you would end up as a psychiatric patient in a straight-jacket.

 

[Betterave]

I do not accept this and see no reason why I should. Given a godless universe, the evolution of every creature would really be utterly accidental and, on that basis, I don’t know why we should accept that a human life is any more precious than that of a banana slug.
Yes, I understand the use of axioms; that’s why I started this discussion with the axiom that God does not exist. Acceptance of your axiom pretty much nullifies the significance of mine and that’s not the discussion I want to have. To me, the significance of a universe without God is that it is not possible to conclude that human life is precious.

Ender

‘Accidental’ does not mean ‘subjective’ - the godless evolution of the human body would be just as ‘accidental’ as the godless evolution of human psychology, but neither would (obviously) be less ‘objectively real’ for being ‘accidental.’

 

[tonyrey]

A moral system that rests on an axiom such as “human life is precious” is on as strong a foundation as a philosophical system that rests upon the law of noncontradiction.

 

[tonyrey]

A moral system that rests on an axiom such as “human life is precious” is on as strong a foundation as a philosophical system that rests upon the law of noncontradiction.

I would like to agree with you, Leela, but I cannot because axioms presuppose the law of non-contradiction! There is also the question of why life is precious. It is a strong foundation but even so it is rejected by those who believe “precious” (and all values) are concepts - which is true - but no more than concepts. If the value of life exists only in the mind it obviously weakens its value! Minds differ and why should some minds not reject the value of life? The fact that they do reveals how precarious a subjective value is. Even an overwhelming majority in support of the value of life is not enough to make it a sufficiently strong foundation for morality.
We need to explain why life is precious. The answer is that it is a source of opportunities for fulfilment and enjoyment - which leads to the further question of what produces fulfilment. Here opinions differ and it is necessary to decide which is the most reasonable explanation. My view is that we are fulfilled in the pursuit of truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love - which are interdependent. So life is precious because we are rational, moral, free beings capable of love and aesthetic appreciation.

I also believe theism is the best explanation of our existence but agnosticism is compatible with objective values - and with almost everything else! They are more difficult to reconcile with atheism because there is no obvious reason why life in a purposeless universe is significant or precious. Atheists who are not materialists are rare and even for that minority intangibles like truth and goodness are problematical. How are they related to physical objects?
Morality certainly exists but what does it consist of?!

It has occurred to me that axioms presuppose the value of rationality which presupposes the value of life which presupposes the value of the universe! How about that?

 

[Syntax]

I would like to agree with you, Leela, but I cannot because axioms presuppose the law of non-contradiction!

I disagree. The impossibility of both denying and affirming “Life is precious” may presuppose the law of non-contradiction. But the isolated statement doesn’t. And even if it did presuppose the law of non-contradiction, that wouldn’t make the statement any less axiomatic, simply because the statement is a moral principle, not a logical principle.

Even an overwhelming majority in support of the value of life is not enough to make it a sufficiently strong foundation for morality.We need to explain why life is precious.

Sure. But I don’t think Leela was claiming that it should act as the only fundamental moral principle from which all others can be derived. Leela (I think) is merely saying that it is a properly basic truth.

 

[The_Exodus]

Many would describe their atheism as a mere lack of belief in any supernatural deities such as the state in which each of us enters the world, and there are all sorts of philosophical positions that atheists hold, so I wouldn’t make any such generalizations about what atheists deny. (I think very few of us would identify as subjectivists.) At any rate, defining what atheists can and can not believe is a debate that we are currently banned from having in this forum. It would be best to stay on topic.

Best,
Leela

It matters little how atheists would describe their belief, if they claim to believe something intrinsically impossible. It follows necessarily that without grounding morality in the absolute in cannot objectively exist. This is Catholic teaching (read JPII’s Veritatis Splendor), and a logical outcome of what follows from the argument.

I felt it was appropriate to answer Ender’s question (which you had failed multiple times to do) and correct your misunderstanding. This being the case, my posts have been applicable and on topic.

 

[The_Exodus]

Socrates: …you can be sure, my dear Crito, that misuse of words is not only troublesome in itself, but actually has a bad effect on the soul.

(Phaedo 115e)

Because you have misunderstood my words in no way implies I’ve misused them.

 

[The_Exodus]

‘Accidental’ does not mean ‘subjective’ - the godless evolution of the human body would be just as ‘accidental’ as the godless evolution of human psychology, but neither would (obviously) be less ‘objectively real’ for being ‘accidental.’

Wha…?

It seems you do not understand what Ender is saying (who is right on the money with his conclusions.)

If something is accidental with regards to a goal or purpose (i.e. something pre-ordained), then there is no objective purpose to the universe. If there is no objectivity - nothing outside the human which justifies the value of various things - then life is objectivley meaningless. Things like human life being “precious” are nothing more than subjective (and ultimately accidental) constructs of the human brain, which has came about, not by any purpose outside itself, but simply due to matter acting on matter in a various, nonmeaningful way.

Ender, I applaud you for staying in this debate for so long. You will not, however, find a reason as to how morality can objectively exist if there is no God. We are not absolute beings, we do not sustain our existence from ourselves, thus, if we do not bow to whatever force has brought us into being, we are, as Nietzsche said “caught in the spiderwebs of our thoughts.” We are thus subject to an inescapable, arbitrary subjectivism.

 

[Syntax]

It matters little how atheists would describe their belief, if they claim to believe something intrinsically impossible. It follows necessarily that without grounding morality in the absolute in cannot objectively exist. This is Catholic teaching (read JPII’s Veritatis Splendor), and a logical outcome of what follows from the argument.

This is wildly incorrect. First, an atheist need not actually believe the existence of God is intrinsically impossible. In fact, most of them believe God just simply does not exist–but they very seldom make any **modal **claims about God’s non-existence. Second, even if God were intrinsically impossible, it does not logically follow that objective morality does not exist. So ANY atheist can still consistently maintain both that objective moral truths exist and that God does not exist.

For most theists,

**action X is moral if and only if God makes it moral. **

So atheists will simply deny that God is required to ground objective moral truths. They will fill in the statement with something like,

Action X is moral if and only if an action X produces the greatest good for the greatest number

…or some such thing. The point is that an atheist need not believe God is required to ground objective moral truths.

 

[Syntax]

Wha…?

It seems you do not understand what Ender is saying (who is right on the money with his conclusions.)

If something is accidental with regards to a goal or purpose (i.e. something pre-ordained), then there is no objective purpose to the universe. If there is no objectivity - nothing outside the human which justifies the value of various things - then life is objectivley meaningless. Things like human life being “precious” are nothing more than subjective (and ultimately accidental) constructs of the human brain, which has came about, not by any purpose outside itself, but simply due to matter acting on matter in a various, nonmeaningful way.

Ender, I applaud you for staying in this debate for so long. You will not, however, find a reason as to how morality can objectively exist if there is no God. We are not absolute beings, we do not sustain our existence from ourselves, thus, if we do not bow to whatever force has brought us into being, we are, as Nietzsche said “caught in the spiderwebs of our thoughts.” We are thus subject to an inescapable, arbitrary subjectivism.

You should not be confused; you should be more careful.

Betterave was right: you are misusing your terms.
“Accidental” is the antonym of “purposive.”
“Subjective” is the antonym of “objective.”

The continuous evolution of the universe can still be accidental and objective–evolution consists of a collective series of random mutations happening to objectively existent things through time–clearly, evolution is not a “subjective” process.

If the universe is accidental, then it certainly does not have some grand design or purpose awaiting each individual, so a person will be “left to himself to invent his own meaning,” as Nietzsche’s perspectivalism would say. But one can still believe that objective moral truths still exist in the universe such as “torturing babies is wrong.”

I strongly suggest getting your terminology clear before posting.

 

[Zerilos]

Wha…? It seems you do not understand what Ender is saying (who is right on the money with his conclusions.) If something is accidental with regards to a goal or purpose (i.e. something pre-ordained), then there is no objective purpose to the universe. If there is no objectivity - nothing outside the human which justifies the value of various things - then life is objectivley meaningless.

True. I suspect most non-theists agree. The fact that life can only be subjectively meaningful invalidates nothing. Even if there is a god, as you suggest, any meaning he granted our lives would still be subjective to his desires or whims.

Things like human life being “precious” are nothing more than subjective (and ultimately accidental) constructs of the human brain, which has came about, not by any purpose outside itself, but simply due to matter acting on matter in a various, nonmeaningful way.

True, yet this invalidates nothing. Regardless as to the nature of our existence, most of us still wish to live a long and peaceful existence; and we want this for our offspring as well. Why? Perhaps our desire to exist and reproduce is nothing more than genetic programing having evolved over the eons because it increases the odds of the survival of our traits. Who cares…I enjoy my life, even without a meaning ascribed to it by a god. The fact that you wish life to be “objectively meaningful” is no more evidence of objective meaningfulness than is my desire to be a billionaire proof that I am a billionaire (for the record I am not). “I want A to be true; therefore A is true” is as much a fallacy as the converse.

Ender, I applaud you for staying in this debate for so long. You will not, however, find a reason as to how morality can objectively exist if there is no God. We are not absolute beings, we do not sustain our existence from ourselves, thus, if we do not bow to whatever force has brought us into being, we are, as Nietzsche said “caught in the spiderwebs of our thoughts.” We are thus subject to an inescapable, arbitrary subjectivism.

Of course, morality needn’t be objective to be real. The argument really seems to be nothing more than this: if god didn’t grant us objective morality then we’d all live lives of indiscriminate violence; we don’t live lives of indiscriminate violence; ergo, god gave us our morality. This is of course absurd from the start, as even the most godless heathen hasn’t a desire top live in such an environment. Morality is dependent upon the situation and, believe it or not, we have the intelligence to figure that out on our own (god or no). Objective morality is a farce, observed by nobody. Few if any acts are evil or good in every situation.