Godless morality?

[tonyrey]

Then the criminal is as justified in his views as anyone else - in stark contrast to the objective moral and legal principles of liberty, equality, fraternity and individual responsibility…

You probably don’t know that one of the authors of the UNHR was Jacques Maritain, who was also one of the finest Catholic philosophers of the twentieth century.

The concept of brotherhood is directly based on the teaching of Jesus that we all have one Father in heaven. If we existed by chance we would be related solely by an accident of birth - hardly a rational foundation for belief in reason, conscience, freedom, equality, fraternity, dignity, responsibility or anything else! A more likely reaction is “I’m all right Jack, pull up the ladder!” In other words leave others to fend for themselves while we eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

You probably don’t know that one of the authors of the UNHR was Jacques Maritain, who was also one of the finest Catholic philosophers of the twentieth century.

Also he wrote:

“Christianity taught men that love is worth more than intelligence.” Jacques Maritain

And since Jesus was the great teacher of love, we do well rather to listen to him rather than to Bertrand Russell and atheistic brains of his ilk.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I thought the value of paper money was based on the amount of gold it is said to represent? Of course the more paper money that is printed the more its value de[c]reases, that is unless there is more gold to back it up. The Christian realizes the true value of money is set by the amount of gold that exists, and the understanding that its very existence can neither be attributed to a Central Bank or any individual human being.

In the USA money hasn’t been backed by gold since 1934. But even the value of the gold is in part determined by the people willing to exchange items and services for it. I don’t think that the existence of gold backed currency impacts the previous example significantly.

 

[polytropos]

I could conceive of a subjective morality that does tell what you do, so to speak. If I may, I’ll use the most simple example:

“If you want to continue to live, then you should not deprive yourself of water.”

If I want to continue to live – a subjective preference – then my not depriving myself of water is an objective necessity. My subjective morality is thus quite clear and objective on that point – if you want to live, drink water. I’m using “moral” here in the broadest sense possible – namely, in the sense of “how should I live; what should my conduct be?”

My subjective morality in terms of my relationship with my siblings also tells me what to do – if you want to be happy, cultivate good relationships with your family members (based on trust, consideration, respect). When my relationships with family members fall by the wayside, I suffer – I am alone or estranged from them, a painful emotion; and if I hurt them, then I am also hurt on that account (via some measure of sympathy or empathy). If I was constituted differently – if I really didn’t need other people in my life --then, admittedly, I would have different rules for living.

If objective morality exists, there is the possiblity that a believer subscribes to both subjective and objective tenets of morality (but isn’t always aware which is which). A Christian, for example, would put a Jewish reverence for life in the objective category, but would put circumcision or abstention from pork in the “subjective” category. A Jewish believer would not agree with that, maintainting that it is all objective, all commanded by God.

I agree that subjective morality can tell you what to do, and I don’t think I articulated my point in quite the way I intended.

What I mean is that the process of acknowledging that subjective morality is subjective prevents me from having the confidence needed to pursue my subjective tenets. We can definitely and with relatively little controversy develop subjective principles that aid preservation of life (like “it is right to drink water”).

My concern is about hazier issues. Take abortion. Maybe I subscribe to the position “it is right to respect the life of human persons.” Then my position on abortion comes down to whether or not I regard a genetically human life as a “human person.” I acknowledge that my position on abortion is a result of that very arbitrary distinction. (By “very arbitrary” I mean without religious invocation.) I don’t have a rational reason for supporting abortion or not. The problem is that some moral issues exist outside of the realm of “drives.” They are things that require cognition, and by tracing the origin of these dilemmas we can see that one cannot rationally hold a subjective position on them.

But almost everyone has a hard stance on abortion, whether or not they are a woman who stands to gain or lose from the death of the fetus growing inside her.

I don’t mean to say, “Everyone has a hard stance, but objective morality is required for that hard stance to be rational, so objective morality exists, (so God exists).” I mean that these people are irrational and cannot be otherwise if they think about the issue of abortion. Some might have an emotional reason for rejecting abortion (by emotional reason I mean a subjective reason, that is the sum of their culture, personal feelings, etc.), but then they go backwards and come up with an alleged premise that supports the conclusion they want to be true. This is the irrational part (the irrational nature of the “emotional reason” would technically not matter in subjective morality).

Again, I am claiming that subjective morality cannot prescribe what to do when it comes to many more complex moral issues. I am not making this argument to insist that objective morality must be, but I am providing the reason why I personally find subjective to be an unworthy modifier of “morality.” It can’t prescribe what I do in all cases. It can’t be comprehensive.

A rational system of logic must proceed from premises and more basic information. The fact that subjective morality often does not lessens my confidence in it and prevents me from developing my own set of subjective moral positions.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

poly

My concern is about hazier issues. Take abortion. Maybe I subscribe to the position “it is right to respect the life of human persons.” Then my position on abortion comes down to whether or not I regard a genetically human life as a “human person.” I acknowledge that my position on abortion is a result of that very arbitrary distinction. (By “very arbitrary” I mean without religious invocation.) I don’t have a rational reason for supporting abortion or not.

You don’t have a rational reason? Why not “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?”

After all, you once existed in your mother’s womb. She evidently took the position that regarding you in her womb “it is right to respect the life of human persons.”

 

[Bradski]

You probably don’t know that one of the authors of the UNHR was Jacques Maritain, who was also one of the finest Catholic philosophers of the twentieth century.

Good old Jacque. A man after my own heart. As you hold him in such high esteem, maybe you would agree with what he said (my emphasis):

“If the philosophy of Aristotle, as revived and enriched by St. Thomas and his school, may rightly be called the Christian philosophy, both because the church is never weary of putting it forward as the only true philosophy and because it harmonizes perfectly with the truths of faith, nevertheless it is proposed here for the reader’s acceptance not because it is Christian, but because it is demonstrably true. This agreement between a philosophic system founded by a pagan and the dogmas of revelation is no doubt an external sign, an extra-philosophic guarantee of its truth; but from its own rational evidence, that it derives its authority as a philosophy”. newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jacques_Maritain

He seems to be suggesting that you can develop a sense of morality (a true philosophy) not because you are a Christian, but as well as being a Christian.

Which seems to answer the question in the OP.

 

[JamesATyler]

Interesting Conversations.

It seems to me that the way we develop our moral code has a lot to do with how we value people and ourselves. I have heard many atheists say they follow the Golden Rule. “Do unto others, how you would have them do unto you” is related to the second greatest commandment given by Jesus, “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” The commandment creates an equal value between people. So all of the commandments that follow, Don’t kill, steal, rape, covet, etc. that have to do with how we treat our neighbor are firmly rooted in the second great commandment. If an atheist follows the second commandment he treats his neighbor as well as he treats himself.

The first great commandment is to love God. The monotheistic person, regards God with an extremely high value, even infinite value. In Catholicism, God became man. In Catholic belief, this deed of God actually elevates the value of a Christian, in that we become a part of the body of God himself. In the Muslim religion, the idea of God becoming man is rejected because Allah is too great to become a lowly man. A man is not a part of Allah. There is a giant difference between the two religions. In the Muslim religion, a man is not nearly as valuable as a man is considered in the Catholic religion. When a Muslim sacrifices himself for Allah, he has not sacrificed something of such high value as to be a sacrifice of something partly divine. Neither are the people that he kills of such a high value either. Allah is a God who is completely separate from his creations. He is not only distant, he is unreachable. Big difference between Jesus and Allah.

This affects our morality. When a Catholic values his neighbor, if the neighbor is Christian, then the value of that person is elevated up to the divine. If the person is not Christian, then that person is regarded as having the potential to be a part of the divine. Not so with either an Atheist or a Muslim. Because of our Catholic belief, the value of a man becomes infinite like God and likewise, so does our own worth become infinite like God’s. This is all because, we believe we share in the divine nature directly. Now, not every Catholic is in the same relation with God and his neighbor. It is a developmental process. But every Catholic who is being molded by the teachings of Jesus and his Church will develop along these lines.

Following the first commandment affects what the second commandment entails. This is because our own selves are united with God.

 

[PRmerger]

He seems to be suggesting that you can develop a sense of morality (a true philosophy) not because you are a Christian, but as well as being a Christian.

Interesting. I see him, in this quote, as saying that you can indeed develop a sense of morality not because you are a Christian.

But I don’t see the part where he says “as well as” a Christian does.

Where do you see that?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

He seems to be suggesting that you can develop a sense of morality (a true philosophy) not because you are a Christian, but as well as being a Christian.

Maritain is not saying that Aristotle’s philosophy completely validates Christianity, but that it can be used to logically support Christian principles. There is a big difference. For example, Aristotle believed in the natural natural law principle of First Cause. This also is taught by Christianity. So it is not that Aristotle teaches about heaven and hell, mortal sins and venial sins, or the sacraments as vitally necessary to salvation, but that in the realm of natural law, Aristotle can be used to support Christian principles, not to replace them or to be equal to them.

Aristotle’s morality certainly is not equal to Christian morality according to Maritain.

Nor can Aristotle’s ethical system be a rational replacement for Christianity that works as well as Christianity.

 

[Bradski]

Interesting. I see him, in this quote, as saying that you can indeed develop a sense of morality not because you are a Christian. But I don’t see the part where he says “as well as” a Christian does.

It’s not ‘as well as a Christian’. It’s ‘as well as being a Christian’. That is, it is not just restricted to Christians because it is a Christian philosophy, but it is a Universal philosophy that is available to Christians *as well as *others.

Aristotle can be used to support Christian principles, not to replace them or to be equal to them.

Seeing as he was first on the scene, I think that you may have it backwards.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not ‘as well as a Christian’. It’s ‘as well as being a Christian’. That is, it is not just restricted to Christians because it is a Christian philosophy, but it is a Universal philosophy that is available to Christians *as well as *others.

Ah, very good, then.

That’s always been my position. (Not to mention the Church’s).

Seeing as he was first on the scene, I think that you may have it backwards.

All truth is Christian truth, Bradski.

 

[JamesATyler]

Seeing as he was first on the scene, I think that you may have it backwards.

Actually we believe that Jesus existed before Aristotle. In fact, he existed before the world.

 

[Portofino]

My concern is about hazier issues. Take abortion. Maybe I subscribe to the position “it is right to respect the life of human persons.” Then my position on abortion comes down to whether or not I regard a genetically human life as a “human person.” I acknowledge that my position on abortion is a result of that very arbitrary distinction. (By “very arbitrary” I mean without religious invocation.) I don’t have a rational reason for supporting abortion or not. The problem is that some moral issues exist outside of the realm of “drives.” They are things that require cognition, and by tracing the origin of these dilemmas we can see that one cannot rationally hold a subjective position on them.

But almost everyone has a hard stance on abortion, whether or not they are a woman who stands to gain or lose from the death of the fetus growing inside her.

Thanks for that clarification. Earlier today, I was thinking about the dilemma of preferring the color red over the color blue, for example. If someone said, “do you want red, or blue” and you said, “it doesn’t matter,” perhaps that would be – strictly speaking – the most rational, neutral response.

Then again, if you said, “Red is my favorite color – I’ll take red”, you would be stating a subjective preference, that is neither rational nor irrational, because it is – perhaps – neither here nor there, as regards rationality. I think all of us can live with that non-rational aspect of life. Otherwise, how could we make aesthetic decisions of any kind: how to get my hair cut; how to dress; how to choose my metaphors; what spices to use with my meal preparations. Rationality, per se, has no guidance to offer me – only taste and preference does (“there is no arguing with taste”).

Perhaps what seems so disturbing – though feeling disturbed or unsatisfied is itself a value judgment of sorts – is that, if there is no objective morality, then morality is being reduced to the same level as aesthetics. Morality becomes a matter of taste.

But I think morals are, perhaps ironically, more stable than mere aesthetic valuations, at least in actuality. Someone like Hobbes – whom I don’t think had a sense of morality, in a religious sense – basically spoke of the “utility” of morality (namely, the utility of staying alive, which meant living on peaceful terms with one’s neighbor). “If I insist on fighting everyone I meet, I will eventually lose.”" And, perhaps from the soil of this self-interest, grows a burgeoning sense of empathy – “they want to live and breathe, just as I do.”

Though this would make for an interesting form of a quasi-rational morality – “it is not rational for me to prefer my well-being over that of my neighbor. My logic of ‘better you than me’ has no rational basis, is just a prejudice.”

Abortion is perhaps the toughest issue I can think of, because it really demands a more idealistic moral valuation, not a pragmatic one. Even MLK essentially said, “if you can’t be altruistic, be selfish. If you don’t give us what we demand, we won’t use your buses; we won’t buy your products; we’ll shout your behavior from the rooftops, damaging your social reputation. You want to give us what we want, because not doing so is going to harm your own perceived interests.” With the unborn fetus – unlike with women, or ethnic minorities, or homosexuals, or the economically disadvantaged – there is no voice, no direct means of fighting back. And, sure enough, there is no possible consensus on the issue, it would seem, whereas we have (for very pragmatic reasons, at bottom) come to a consensus that indiscriminate killing is “wrong” (in actuality, because it is a danger to everyone).

Any sense of humanistic ethics I have stems from the fact that is seems natural, seems “right” – as fundamental as the fact that we speak to each other using language (with a grammatical structure) as opposed to speaking gibberish. In admittedly diffuse, general terms, I think that “moral behavior” is the only way we can survive as a species, and I don’t care that the desire for survival is itself neither rational nor irrational (like my preference of the color red). For most human beings, that preference is literally as intimate and fundamental as the fact of their unconscious breathing, unconscious digestion, or the unconsciousness of their beating heart.

But I know that – alas – morality will seemingly never be as clear-cut as elementary mathematics. The only question is whether it is as non clear-cut as aesthetics. One respect in which it is not as arbitrary as aesthetics – that the morality one chooses can literally be the difference between life and death (for example, a society that does not lock up people like James Holmes, because his lifestyle choice is valid and to be respected, versus one that does). aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00059214.html

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

**Seeing as he was first on the scene, I think that you may have it backwards. **

Not really. Moses was before Aristotle, and Jesus is the fulfillment of the Mosaic prophecy.

Aristotle is not the fulfillment of any prophecy, and the golden mean of Aristotle as an ethical principle is nowhere near so profound as the golden rule of Jesus.

By the way, the order of one’s birth means nothing where Jesus is concerned, since Jesus is the son of God and no matter how far you go back the golden rule is given to all the world through all time as the most common sense and universal principle of morality.

 

[polytropos]

poly

My concern is about hazier issues. Take abortion. Maybe I subscribe to the position “it is right to respect the life of human persons.” Then my position on abortion comes down to whether or not I regard a genetically human life as a “human person.” I acknowledge that my position on abortion is a result of that very arbitrary distinction. (By “very arbitrary” I mean without religious invocation.) I don’t have a rational reason for supporting abortion or not.

You don’t have a rational reason? Why not “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?”

After all, you once existed in your mother’s womb. She evidently took the position that regarding you in her womb “it is right to respect the life of human persons.”

I don’t consider that to be a rational reason. It’s an axiom. It can be a premise, and from it I would be compelled to conclude that abortion is wrong, but the actual assumption of the premise is not rational.

My point about the abortion debate is the both sides agree that respecting the life of human persons is something we should do - but then those who want abortions will claim that a fetus isn’t a person. That is subjective morality: you take the conclusion you want and then move backwards to come up with a premise that leads to your conclusion.

I do not believe in God so I don’t believe in objective morality. But with this abortion example I am trying to articulate what makes me uncomfortable about subjective morality and why I can’t really bring myself to support it. Subjective morality is argued philosophically here, but when people try to argue about moral issues like abortion, they still claim that their position is true and should be true for everyone.

I am glad I was not aborted. I do not support abortion. I don’t think that I have a good reason for not supporting abortion, though. If I did believe in God, and if I believed that I was created by God, and if I believed that everyone was created by God, so that everyone has dignity, I would have a good reason for opposing abortion.

My current reason is I see ending the life of a genetically human, biologically alive organism as murder (legally defined). So I see the abortion case as an issue of hypocrisy: I don’t think society can forbid murder and allow abortions; I think that a rational society can’t allow abortions without sanctioning murder for the sake of practicality and comfort in general. I don’t regard this as rational; I don’t have an objective reason for holding it. It’s just that I want society’s laws to be logically cohesive and they are not.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

poly

I don’t consider that to be a rational reason. It’s an axiom. It can be a premise, and from it I would be compelled to conclude that abortion is wrong, but the actual assumption of the premise is not rational.

Can you explain what you mean by “the assumption of the premise is not rational”?

 

[polytropos]

Sure. You have asked me why the golden rule is not a “rational reason” for me to oppose abortion. For something to be a “rational” it must be deducible through reason. The golden rule provides me with a premise for morality, but I don’t think that I could deduce the truth of the golden rule (correct me if you disagree).

I can take “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” as my basis for morality. Or I could take “do unto others what they would like you to do unto them” as my basis for morality. I don’t have a reason for picking one of these over the other, because either one is assumed, not deduced.

They generate slightly different moral systems. And are both subjective anyway. In the case of abortion - yes, I would rather not have been aborted. Others are not as clear cut (and would not align with Catholic morality). One spouse in a marriage, for instance, might want a divorce, but the other might be morally opposed to divorce.

 

[Simon_Hurt]

That actually was resolved in the thread which was the progenitor of this thread. Here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10562494&highlight=euthyphro%27s#post10562494

Are you referring to the Feser quote? If so, it seems that he answered “neither” in favor of basically saying “god is good,” which is a pretty hollow and clumsy statement. That’s basically like saying “god is god” or even “good is good” since you are equating god to a property. If “good is good because it is good,” as you can argue the statement to conclude, what purpose does god serve?

Moral dilemmas exist because our reasoning is impaired.

“With the light of reason human beings can know which path to take, but they can follow that path to its end, quickly and unhindered, only if with a rightly tuned spirit they search for it within the horizon of faith”–Fides et Ratio

The natural limitation of reason and the inconstancy of the heart often obscure and distort a person’s search.

At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.

Interesting, though this assumes that absolute truths exist, and that humans can attain absolute truth. Neither of which has anybody provided evidence for.

Then the criminal is as justified in his views as anyone else

Justified to himself? Yes, provided he thinks his criminal act was good
Justified to others? Some, yes.
Justified to the social group to which he belongs? Most likely not

All principles - including scientific ones - are social constructs

.

Indeed, like morality and god are social constructs

The archpriest of absurdity!

Human existence is absurd

 

[Simon_Hurt]

The problem I have with subjective morality is cognition: once I think about it I cannot justify one set of subjective moral values anymore than another moral system. I believe that the language and terminology of subjective morality have been developed by philosophers who want to be able to give themselves “purpose” (and “purpose” that they like) without subscribing to an objective “purpose.”

I know the Church has a position on why there are moral dilemmas. As I’m an atheist, I won’t argue them. I would say, though, that it’s not a matter of our drives being in line with morality but of the morality being comprehensive, and Catholic morality is comprehensive. There are universal answers, but they are not universally followed.

This brings up my original point that objective truth—which may or may not exist—is irrelevant because everybody follows their own sense of subjective morality.

Justification will be an individual process or a consensus among a group. That we are all human and obviously share most characteristics would mean shared ideas of right/wrong based on common human experience, though not always the same ideas of right/wrong due to personal experience.

Rather: what seems to be true to me does not necessarily seem to be true to you, because of your socialization, consciousness, and perception. You are not really making a case about the way reality is (which is constant) but the way you interpret reality. In disciplines like the sciences this would destroy your credibility. Reality is one thing; if either of us fails to apprehend reality, it is not “truth to me” or “truth to you”–it is a failure to apprehend reality.

We can get really philosophical here by asking if anything (such as an objective reality) exists outside of your own thoughts. Reality can be described as a consensus among individuals, but as we can never know anything outside of our own cognition, how can we know for certain that our ideas of reality are the same, that our idea of reality is compatible to the objective one, or that an objective one actually exists?

I am additionally troubled by the fact that subjective morality has no implications (and here I speak to you as someone who has become estranged from modernity, not as someone who is necessarily disputing). You can talk about your set of drives as subjective morality, but that does not exactly tell you what to do. Unlike most animals, you (presumably) do not act solely on your impulses. Once I am conscious of the arbitrary nature of my drives, I doubt their validity in forming a subjective basis for morality. Furthermore, we can deduce a subjective morality, but there is no reason for me to respect others’ subjective moralities or for me to expect that others respect mine. Subjective morality becomes a useless term that just refers to a set of biological/psychological/social phenomena.

Of course subjective morality has implications – you don’t live in a vacuum. I refer you back to the idea of shared human experiences, particularly the idea empathy.

I don’t have an answer for you here. I entertained similar thoughts in a recent post. When I refer to “God” I am referring to the Catholic God. A God existing of the nature described by the Catholics would imply moral truth. In terms of another creator, I would not necessarily argue that there is objective truth. (Although to look at your second scenario, I would argue that in any case that a god does not exist, there would be no moral truth.

Interesting, if no god exists, can there be any objective truths?

If God exists, is omnipotent, and is personal, then his morality would have to be objective. If an omnipotent God declares something to be wrong (or creates something in his image, thereby giving it dignity because he is omnipotent), then it would be objectively wrong. Only something decreed by something omnipotent could gain objective moral truth.

God decrees right and wrong and that makes it absolute. But that means god can cancel and replace anything at any time to be right/wrong; can objective truth be both absolute and variable?

 

[Portofino]

God decrees right and wrong and that makes it absolute. But that means god can cancel and replace anything at any time to be right/wrong; can objective truth be both absolute and variable?

Indeed. There are actually two moralities in the Old Testament – that which is permitted to humans under normal circumstances, and that which is permitted to humans when it is divinely commanded (for example, the killing of the Canaanites). God’s killing of the Egyptian first born – believed in as literal fact, not as myth – is another example of God taking life as He sees fit, even though humans can’t.

But even Catholics have just war theory – so, frankly they too do not believe “do not kill” is an absolute ethical standard. In their defense, they indeed would say “morality does not exist in a vacuum” and cannot be viewed independently of circumstances (for example, “do not lie” would be difficult without exceptions, especially when someone’s live is at stake). The only question is under what conditions one is permitted to make exceptions to “do not kill.”

Many conservatives make that exception in the case of capital punishment, because the death is “deserved.” The life of the guilty is deemed not to have the same value as the life of the guilty.

Many liberals make that exception in the case of abortion, because a fetus is “not yet” a person.

Catholics make that exception not only in terms of “just war” but, until recently, in terms of capital punishment (in the 19th century, when the Vatican had political power, it practiced capital punishment). It does not believe that killing is never justified.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_by_the_Holy_See

As I understand it, current directives (by Pope Benedict, at the time) were that euthanasia and abortion cannot be supported by a Catholic. As for war and capital punishment, Catholics are permitted to consult their own consciences.