Moral Absolutism

[FuzzyBunny116]

How does one discover the moral authority for objective values and morality, without reference to God (because referencing God is pointless to atheists or in a secular matter)? Even those who believe in objective morality will differ on what it is. How then, does one decide what the outside authority of morality is? And how can someone say that lying is wrong, and then say lying to protect Jews from Nazis is right? If lying is wrong the way murder is wrong, how can it be justified? And if it is justifiable, isn’t that basically Utilitarianism?

I’m sure I’ll have more moral questions as they come up . I suppose I just need to play the Devil’s Advocate for a while, if anyone cares to help me.

 

[Mirdath]

Easily. The Golden Rule itself is an absolutist moral code that does not invoke a deity. And Jesus is hardly the only person to have come up with it.

For a slightly more advanced absolutist morality, try Kant: Act always by that maxim whereby you can will it becomes universal law. The Categorical Imperative is perhaps the best absolute morality one can contrive, God or no God.

Of course, nobody is necessarily bound by any moral code; but that’s just as true of divinely mandated morality as it is of any other.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Read Natural Law Theory and or Natural Moral Law.

Read Kant if you want to, however, there is still a problem with how Kant is sure lying does not exist because it is not a rational ‘maxium’ so it can not be law. Of course if lying does exist it would mean it is a moral universal law! read away

 

[tdgesq]

They can’t. You are proposing a meta-ethical question that atheists have a very difficult time answering. Why anyone should accept the atheists ultimate standard of morality usually turns into a pragmatical game of chess. But in the end, they don’t have anything that approaches eternal fire as a consequence. Not that that is really what Catholic morality is all about.

The biggest problem atheists have is that their systems of morality contradict other parts of their world view. That alone is enough to reject them. Catholics can explain why sometimes there are exceptions to the rule. We have divine revelation. Other systems of morality cannot account for the minute exceptions they want to make for general laws. In essence, atheists borrow from our system of morality all the while deceiving themselves that that isn’t what they’ve really done.

 

[a_priori]

In a universe with no God, one person can kill another person and there is no place to point in order to call it absolutely “wrong”. The Lion kills the lamb. The big guy kills the little guy. There is no difference. The stars are silent.

You can huff and you can puff, but you cannot create a moral absolute starting from an impersonal universe devoid of God.

Atheists are merely presupposing what they are claiming to prove.

It’s OK to be an atheist, but don’t claim the privileges of having rights and inherent value as a human being when your worldview is not capable of bestowing those rights and that inherent value. Just be honest.

 

[jman507]

I’d suppose you could even give that there is a God, and still not have Moral Absolutism. Although that would also depend on the definition of what God is. To reason anything one has to take some givens. One could also take the suicide of thought method, and take no givens at all, to which one can then reason nothing.

 

[Mirdath]

They can’t.

a priori:

You can huff and you can puff, but you cannot create a moral absolute starting from an impersonal universe devoid of God.

Atheists are merely presupposing what they are claiming to prove.

I do not presume to say ‘this is what Catholics believe’, except insofar as I can point to references in the Catechism, Code of Canon Law, or another reputable Catholic source. Is such common courtesy too much to ask of you?

I am an unbeliever; I am also a moral absolutist. I simply do not have to run to God to think certain things wrong.

 

[a_priori]

I am an unbeliever; I am also a moral absolutist. I simply do not have to run to God to think certain things wrong.

For some, the concept of “running to God” suggests some sort of inadequacy or wimpishness on the part of a person who acknowledges His existence.

Your absolutes are arbritrary unless you can point to something other than a social expedient within the context of a particular society at a particular point in time.

Social contracts do not absolutes make.

Stark evolution produces the alligator. The alligator kills the rabbit. That’s fine.

Stark evolution produces the man. The man kills another man and now that is wrong? Why?

What is the difference between the two in a strictly Darwinian world without God?

 

[tm30]

And how can someone say that lying is wrong, and then say lying to protect Jews from Nazis is right?

Because there are instances where one party is not entitled to the truth. If someone - a stranger, let’s say - sends you an e-mail demanding to know if you will be out of town for two weeks in October, they’re certainly not entitled to know. They could be plotting to burglarize your house when you’re gone. In which case an untruth becomes an act of self-preservation, not a means of gaining advantage over an innocent contra party. Killing is against the 10 Commandments, too, but not when it’s a matter of self-preservation against an unjust aggressor. Some say practicing abortion to save the life of the mother is acceptable since it falls under self-preservation, but the victim is not an unjust aggressor. And thus, the end does not justify the means.

 

[tm30]

I am an unbeliever; I am also a moral absolutist. I simply do not have to run to God to think certain things wrong.

According to Genesis, God made man in His image. What differs us from the beasts He created on the same day, is that He has infused within us a rational soul - the gift of reason. Your ability to think certain things wrong comes from no other source but God Himself, and is proof that He exists. There is no physiological proof of what causes “reason” or “discursive thoughts”. There is no physiological proof of what generates “motive”. Firing synapses have to be fired by something.

Therefore, without this primary Mover - this first Cause - your very thoughts couldn’t possibly exist. To be a moral absolutist and not believe in God is a sign of moral confusion, not moral verity.

 

[Mirdath]

For some, the concept of “running to God” suggests some sort of inadequacy or wimpishness on the part of a person who acknowledges His existence.

I have found many people seem to use it as an excuse to avoid responsibility: ‘God says you’re wrong, don’t shoot the messenger’. It’s a kind of mealy-mouthed, self-righteous buck-passing that only serves to diminish the glory of Catholic intellectual tradition.

Your absolutes are arbritrary unless you can point to something other than a social expedient within the context of a particular society at a particular point in time.

Social contracts do not absolutes make.

Certainly, they don’t – at least, once you look outside the society in question. But I have not even brought up social contracts.

What is the difference between the two in a strictly Darwinian world without God?

Does the man eat the one he has just killed? Would he willingly trade places with the victim?

Do the rabbit and the alligator have something to gain by working together, as opposed to being predator and prey?

tm30:

According to Genesis, God made man in His image. What differs us from the beasts He created on the same day, is that He has infused within us a rational soul - the gift of reason.

A fine assertion! But I do not believe it; I see no reason to believe it; and in spite of that, I have tried to believe it and failed.

Your ability to think certain things wrong comes from no other source but God Himself, and is proof that He exists.

Uh, no, no it isn’t. First, prove that reason is a divine gift. Which itself necessitates proving God exists, and then proving his magnanimity. Cart before the horse.

To be a moral absolutist and not believe in God is a sign of moral confusion, not moral verity.

How nice. Care to explain?

 

[a_priori]

I have found many people seem to use it as an excuse to avoid responsibility: ‘God says you’re wrong, don’t shoot the messenger’. It’s a kind of mealy-mouthed, self-righteous buck-passing that only serves to diminish the glory of Catholic intellectual tradition.

In this context I agree. The “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” approach is pretty lame.

Certainly, they don’t – at least, once you look outside the society in question. But I have not even brought up social contracts.

But saying that killing, stealing, etc. etc. is wrong apart from God’s laws condemning these things can only be framed in the context of “I won’t do it to you if you don’t do it to me”. It is strictly a social agreement with no higher meaning than that. It is arbitrary.

Does the man eat the one he has just killed? Would he willingly trade places with the victim?

Do the rabbit and the alligator have something to gain by working together, as opposed to being predator and prey?

The stars are not capable of producing moral algorithms where the intent of the alligator or the man determines the “rightness” of the act… The stars are silent. The intentions of the alligator or man are excruciatingly irrelevant in a strictly mechanical universe devoid of God.

 

[tdgesq]

I do not presume to say ‘this is what Catholics believe’, except insofar as I can point to references in the Catechism, Code of Canon Law, or another reputable Catholic source. Is such common courtesy too much to ask of you?

I am an unbeliever; I am also a moral absolutist. I simply do not have to run to God to think certain things wrong.

Mirdath, I’m not quite sure why you think I was being discourteous. Here is the first question that was asked in the O.P.:

How does one discover the moral authority for objective values and morality, without reference to God (because referencing God is pointless to atheists or in a secular matter)?

I suppose I could have answered “one can’t” instead of “they can’t,” except that the poster specifically refers to atheists. I’m not going to ignore the question or make up one of my own to answer so as not to offend anybody. Nor am I going to be untruthful and pretend that I believe atheists have a way to account for objective morality without God. I don’t know what every atheist believes, but after viewing many of their arguments and debating dozens of them I have yet to see a coherent answer to the O.P.'s questions. Maybe I should have expressed it that way instead. In any case, my intent wasn’t to offend.

 

[Mirdath]

But saying that killing, stealing, etc. etc. is wrong apart from God’s laws condemning these things can only be framed in the context of “I won’t do it to you if you don’t do it to me”. It is strictly a social agreement with no higher meaning than that. It is arbitrary.

That ‘tit for tat’ you speak of is the Golden Rule; and while that is, in fact, the basis of an absolute moral code (murder is absolutely wrong because I don’t want to be murdered), the issue is a separate one: that it is not objective.

Objectivity is, of course, generally something to be valued; and it is true that, say, the Categorical Imperative possesses that quality in lesser degree than does ‘natural law’. However, ‘natural law’ achieves that objectivity by sacrificing maturity. In the end, the Categorical Imperative says ‘act like this because you want everybody to act like this’; ‘natural law’ says ‘act like this because Daddy said so’. It’s a childish morality, one based not on thought and reason but on fear, subservience, and an arrogant presumption that one is already in the Right.

But how objective is ‘natural law’, anyway? Ask three different people what mores it enforces and you’ll get three different answers – at least! And each answer will come with myriad assurances of its rectitude, and usually with a footnote that the respondent is a shining example of how to live a Moral Life. Interpretation of ‘natural law’, then, pretty much depends on the person – making it about as objective as one’s favorite color. Or, if you like, as objective as the Golden Rule. The Categorical Imperative actually has a leg up on it with the concept of universalization.

The stars are not capable of producing moral algorithms where the intent of the alligator or the man determines the “rightness” of the act… The stars are silent. The intentions of the alligator or man are excruciatingly irrelevant in a strictly mechanical universe devoid of God.

Sure, the intentions are irrelevant – intentions don’t affect anyone else. Actions do. As for relevance, you’re pushing the human ego just a little there. ‘ACKNOWLEDGE ME, UNIVERSE!’ shouts the gnat.

Ozymandias’ statue ended up buried in the sand, with its inscription ‘Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair’; what makes you think you’re any more special than he?

tdgesq:

I suppose I could have answered “one can’t” instead of “they can’t,” except that the poster specifically refers to atheists. I’m not going to ignore the question or make up one of my own to answer so as not to offend anybody. Nor am I going to be untruthful and pretend that I believe atheists have a way to account for objective morality without God. I don’t know what every atheist believes, but after viewing many of their arguments and debating dozens of them I have yet to see a coherent answer to the O.P.'s questions.

I gave an answer in the first reply to the thread Maybe you haven’t spoken with many nontheists who’ve given this particular matter a good deal of thought; ah well, plenty of believers don’t care enough to think it over either.

Maybe I should have expressed it that way instead. In any case, my intent wasn’t to offend.

Thanks

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That ‘tit for tat’ you speak of is the Golden Rule…

Why is answering the question of a moral /ethical base for atheism so hard, why not simply write it down?

 

[Mirdath]

Why is answering the question of a moral /ethical base for atheism so hard, why not simply write it down?

I’ve written it down several times, TR, often in direct response to your very own posts. So have others, Nepenthe, MerryAtheist, cheddarsox, and Publisher, to name a few – and not all these people are non-theists either. You never seem to see these answers you claim you want, though. Why’s that? Is it personally inconvenient to you that somebody might possess a consistent, concrete moral code without belief in your deity? Does it rub you the wrong way somehow? Is it like an itch just under your skin, right where you can’t reach it, this disturbing thought of a moral unbeliever? Do you lie awake at night, peering wide-eyed through your window for glimpses of the Army of Really Nice Heathens?

Boo!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’ve written it down several times, TR, often in direct response to your very own posts. So have others, Nepenthe, MerryAtheist, cheddarsox, and Publisher, to name a few – and not all these people are non-theists either. You never seem to see these answers you claim you want, though. Why’s that? Is it personally inconvenient to you that somebody might possess a consistent, concrete moral code without belief in your deity? Does it rub you the wrong way somehow? Is it like an itch just under your skin, right where you can’t reach it, this disturbing thought of a moral unbeliever? Do you lie awake at night, peering wide-eyed through your window for glimpses of the Army of Really Nice Heathens?

Boo!

Which means you cannot write it down? Point to it in other posts? I’ll bet you can find where someone threw out and idea or cited an author. Yet they abandoned that idea, is that not the real reason you cannot point out their/your/atheist base?

 

[Mirdath]

Which means you cannot write it down? Point to it in other posts? I’ll bet you can find where someone threw out and idea or cited an author. Yet they abandoned that idea, is that not the real reason you cannot point out their/your/atheist base?

What precisely do you imagine I’ve been talking about through this entire thread, TR? What do you think I’ve said when I’ve discussed the Golden Rule, the Categorical Imperative, and social contracts with you and with others all the many times they’ve been brought up before? On the multiple occasions I’ve recommended reading to you, did something come out garbled? Did you think I referred to the distinguished literary and philosophical tradition of the Martians? If so, allow me to assure you that I have referenced only Earthlings, and that you will not have to decode radio signals to discover their works.

I have been nothing but open and straightforward with you. You, in turn, have been nothing of the sort. Your explanation of your own moral code is, so far as I have seen, no deeper than ‘the Bible said so’, without any kind of interpretation, explanation, or rational inquiry – and you have the gall to tell me I’m not ‘able’ to do something I have been doing here for months?

At this point, TR, you have no excuse for your ignorance. I have tried to help, however fruitlessly – but then, I suppose even Jesus only healed the willing. Remain blind, if you wish; but until you can be bothered to actually read what I say, or to hold your own morals up to a little scrutiny, we have nothing to discuss. Don’t tell me what I can and can’t do, and don’t tell me what I do or don’t believe. You, apparently, have absolutely no clue what those things are.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Because there are instances where one party is not entitled to the truth. If someone - a stranger, let’s say - sends you an e-mail demanding to know if you will be out of town for two weeks in October, they’re certainly not entitled to know. They could be plotting to burglarize your house when you’re gone. In which case an untruth becomes an act of self-preservation, not a means of gaining advantage over an innocent contra party. Killing is against the 10 Commandments, too, but not when it’s a matter of self-preservation against an unjust aggressor. Some say practicing abortion to save the life of the mother is acceptable since it falls under self-preservation, but the victim is not an unjust aggressor. And thus, the end does not justify the means.

Killing is not against the Commandment, murder is. Murder being the killing of innocent life. There is no distinction for lying. Lying is wrong is wrong. There is no word for “lying to preserve life.” The church says that lying is also acceptable if the inquiring party doesn’t have a right to that information. Why is this? If lying is a sin - being the deliberate distortion of the Truth, a good - how can it ever be used? Killing someone is not a sin because it is in just defense. Murder is a sin because it is an unjust offense. There is no such distinction for lying.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Thanks for the responses everyone. I think my question on moral absolutes boils down to a question of who or what is the arbitrator of these truths, not just how we get there, but who/what decides whose right? If God is the sole arbitrator of moral truth, then any moral argument for legalizing/criminalizing anything (slavery, abortion, etc) is meaningless due to the establishment clause - appeals to God cannot be a justification for secular legislation. And besides, if God is the only way of determining moral truth, I suspect that atheists would sooner fall into believing that there is no absolute moral truth (which many do) than be forced to believe in a God due to justify their belief in absolute morality.