Is Morality possible without God

[PickyPicky]

No, I really don’t. I’m not trying to build a set of moral rules for society; I am simply addressing how I should decide on what my personal morality should be. How others choose to behave is up to them to decide

But we do not, on the whole, decide what our personal morality should be.

I’ve been trying to make the point that if morality is merely subjective then one set of rules is the equivalent of any other set because in fact morality is itself illusory

It doesn’t make morality illusory. Why should it? It just makes it subjective. Not random or greatly differing, but subjective.

I imagine people can come up with any number of practical reasons why it’s a bad idea to murder someone, but I don’t believe there is any moral objetions that doesn’t include the concept that morality is actually objective

No practical reason necessary. For me to murder would be immoral. Why? Because my subjective morality says so.

 

[Ender]

It doesn’t make morality illusory. Why should it? It just makes it subjective. Not random or greatly differing, but subjective

If morality is subjective, what does it mean if I say something is morally wrong? It can mean nothing more than that I disapprove of it. I might as accurately say it is immoral to prefer vanilla over chocolate. Everything pertains to my view of things rather than to what actually is. If my personal moral standards are as valid as yours, which they would be if morality is simply a subjective preference, then whether I am the Marquis de Sade or Mother Theresa, the standards are morally equivalent. If that is so then clearly morality is an illusion.

For me to murder would be immoral. Why? Because my subjective morality says so.

Yes, and it makes sense to say “For me, murder is immoral”, but it would not make any sense at all to say “Murder is immoral” because that clearly cannot be so.

 

[Ender]

And you continue to miss the point that others have presented to you, and that is that there is no objective morality. But that doesn’t stop societies from forming a common moral code, through a shared set of values. Whether you agree with it, or choose to abide by it, is up to you. But just because it’s subjective doesn’t make it illusory. Many of societies mores and traditions are based solely upon a shared cultural experience, and not any objective truths. But they’re real none-the-less.

This doesn’t distinguish what is moral from what is legal. Yes, societies have a legal code, but to say they share the same moral code is obviously untrue; all one has to do is look at the disagreements in this country over abortion.

Yes, morality is subjective, and no set of morals is superior to any other set of morals, except when it comes to ensuring the well-being of the individual and the group.

No, there is no “except” if morality is subjective. You can justifiably say one legal code is superior to another because one can compare the resulting societies, but you cannot say your morals are superior to mine because there is nothing fixed by which to measure them.

 

[Ender]

Hmmmm…that leads to an interesting question, is it moral to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast?

If morality is simply subjective the question is identical to “Do you like bacon and eggs for breakfast?” That’s all it means. There is no objectively valid answer.

 

[Ender]

I asked you a question. Is it moral to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast?

Yes or no? You do believe that it’s a yes or no question…right?

No, I believe it is a meaningless question on the order of is it moral to prefer red to yellow. If morality is subjective then it is merely a matter of personal preference and “Is it moral?” means no more than “Do you like?”

 

[Ender]

Just answer the question. Do you personally believe that it’s moral to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast?

Yes or no? It should take you about two seconds to answer.

I did answer the question: it is meaningless. Is two more moral than three? You are asking what I prefer, so with that understanding, I eat bacon and eggs for breakfast. You can ask whether 2+2=4 because there is an objectively true answer, but you cannot ask if the mountains are prettier than the shore because there is no objectively valid answer. The same is true about (subjective) morality: there is no objectively valid truth, and my eating eggs and bacon doesn’t make it moral any more than my preferring the mountains makes that a moral preference.

 

[MeditateOnJesus]

I believe that morality is certainly possible from an atheistic perspective. For instance, the Buddhist faith has the Five Moral Precepts, and a person does not need to believe in God to be a Buddhist.

From a Catholic perspective, the USCCB says in heaven love alone will be enough, but here on earth we need guidance (morality) to prevent our love from slipping into sentimentality. They speak about how we must avoid the intrinsically evil acts. We also have to have good intentions. I believe if someone avoids intrinsically evil acts and has good intentions, then they likely have a good moral compass. We also need God’s grace. I think God is quite liberal with giving grace. We are all made in His image. We have that good seed within our hearts.

 

[Ender]

Well, since it’s taking you way longer than the required two seconds to answer, it’s no doubt due to the fact that you can’t answer.

Because for the Jew and the vegan it’s definitely immoral to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast. But for a great many people, like you, it’s a meaningless question.

But I’ll ask again. Is it moral to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast?

So, is it immoral because some people believe it is immoral, or is it moral because some people believe that is moral? If the answer is no for you and yes for me then the question is meaningless. My preference has no effect on reality, so in what sense does it matter what I believe?

There is no correct answer; there is no absolute sense in which either answer is true, just as it is unreasonable to ask whether it is moral or immoral to vacation in the mountains.

 

[Ender]

So you believe that there’s no such thing as objective morality? You also believe that there’s no such thing as subjective morality either?

Essentially , yes. Unless morality objectively exists it does not exist at all; it makes no sense to speak of subjective morality since that would be nothing more than personal preference. You would have no more basis for claiming that giving is more moral than stealing than for saying eating fish is more moral than eating beef.

Unless there is an objective basis for comparing things, preferring one thing to another is no more than personal whim.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Use Kant’s Categorical Imperative. If you think that stealing is acceptable, then you must agree to live in a society where everyone thinks the same. Obviously that wouldn’t work. Not even at the group level.

No, I really don’t. I’m not trying to build a set of moral rules for society; I am simply addressing how I should decide on what my personal morality should be. How others choose to behave is up to them to decide.

I’ve been trying to make the point that if morality is merely subjective then one set of rules is the equivalent of any other set because in fact morality is itself illusory. I imagine people can come up with any number of practical reasons why it’s a bad idea to murder someone, but I don’t believe there is any moral objection that doesn’t include the concept that morality is actually objective.

I’d be happy to entertain an argument on that point if anyone would like to make one.

We don’t make moral rules to form societies. Societies only form under certain conditions. And those conditions include what we class as moral rules such as ‘don’t kill’ and ‘don’t steal’. Because those ‘rules’ have got us to where we are, we class them as good.

Now if you personally decide that the rules don’t apply to you, then you are free to make that call. In that sense, the rules are subjective. You can play by them or not. But they are objective in that we are here having this conversation because of them.

Societies often grow in areas where there is access to a water supply. That’s an objective fact. But whether you want to live there is a matter of subjective opinion.

 

[o_mlly]

We don’t make moral rules to form societies.

Ahem … as morality is all about rights and obligations, you may want to add our Declaration of Independence to your reading list:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[o_mlly]

Those aren’t morals. Ethical standards perhaps. But not morals.

Ethics is but a subheading of morality.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/

Human rights are norms that help to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses. Examples of human rights are the right to freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial when charged with a crime, the right not to be tortured, and the right to engage in political activity. These rights exist in morality and in law at the national and international levels.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

We don’t make moral rules to form societies.

Ahem … as morality is all about rights and obligations, you may want to add our Declaration of Independence to your reading list:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration didn’t make up those moral rules. As I was trying to say, they are ‘rules’ without which societies would not form. And they existed a very long time indeed before the founding fathers felt the need to codify them. And a very long time before any given religion decided to commit them to their particular scripture.

They are, to coin a phrase I read somewhere, ‘self-evident’. Objective in that sense but subjective in that one doesn’t have to align oneself to them.

 

[o_mlly]

Subheading or not those aren’t morals. They’re a codification of ethical standards. Ethical standards don’t by of themselves constitute morals, anymore than the codification of laws makes them moral.

Take it up with Stanford. Your idea of what constitutes morality is uniquely your own. Surprise, surprise!

 

[o_mlly]

The Declaration didn’t make up those moral rules. As I was trying to say, they are ‘rules’ without which societies would not form. And they existed a very long time indeed before the founding fathers felt the need to codify them. And a very long time before any given religion decided to commit them to their particular scripture.

They are, to coin a phrase I read somewhere, ‘self-evident’. Objective in that sense but subjective in that one doesn’t have to align oneself to them.

You argument that morality is objective is correct. Your argument that humans have the free will to reject the truth is also correct.

 

[o_mlly]

Words can be hard.

No, not really. Words only become hard when others make up their own definitions.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

The Declaration didn’t make up those moral rules. As I was trying to say, they are ‘rules’ without which societies would not form. And they existed a very long time indeed before the founding fathers felt the need to codify them. And a very long time before any given religion decided to commit them to their particular scripture.

They are, to coin a phrase I read somewhere, ‘self-evident’. Objective in that sense but subjective in that one doesn’t have to align oneself to them.

You argument that morality is objective is correct. Your argument that humans have the free will to reject the truth is also correct.

I’ll take that as some sort of success on my behalf. But moral codes that have been evolutionary sifted (and can only take us so far) and ‘the truth’ are not necessarily the same. Indeed, may lay counter to a lot of what Catholicism teaches.

 

[o_mlly]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I’ll ask you the same question that I asked Ender. Is it moral to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast? If morality is truly objective then that’s a simple yes or no question.

So what is it…yes…or no?

Not all acts are moral acts, only human acts as defined below.

“Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil” ( Catechism of the Catholic Church , 1749).

 

[o_mlly]

I’ll take that as some sort of success on my behalf. But moral codes that have been evolutionary sifted (and can only take us so far) and ‘the truth’ are not necessarily the same. Indeed, may lay counter to a lot of what Catholicism teaches.

Correct. Truth and human knowledge are not always identities. Only when human knowledge conforms to objective reality (moral truth) does knowledge become the truth.

 

[o_mlly]

You didn’t answer the question. But people who believe in objective morality seldom do.

But using the definition that you provided, a vegan could well consider the act of eating bacon and eggs for breakfast to be immoral. Because it would subject them to a judgment of conscience. Now if morality is truly objective, and not something subject to one’s personal conscience, then eating bacon and eggs for breakfast is immoral for everyone.

You do not understand a human act. The choice to eat is always a human act. The choice of what to eat is not always a moral choice.