Morality without God?

[Portofino]

If God (as defined by classic theism) does not exist, where do qualities such as beauty, goodness or even truth come from? These qualitative aspects are dependent upon some subjective “being” or other to impose them, no? It would seem that the onus is on those, perhaps you, who hold that truly objective grounds for morality can exist without God.

I think one thing a non-believer such as Richard Dawkins can affirm is that beauty is relative to the human subject, in the eye of the beholder. Another admission by non-believers is that moral norms are in the eye of the beholder, as well (someone like Sam Harris can contest that, but he is – in fact – speaking of “inter-subjective” human morality, as opposed to a truly objective morality).

But Dawkins, as we know, is absolutely insistent on the fact that truth exists. It is the very basis on which non-believers are so hotly critical of religious belief – because they believe it is in violation of “what is the case” about the universe; in violation of truth; of reality.

The theist argument being put forth here is not only can objective beauty and objective goodness not exist independently of something independent of human beings which nonetheless partakes of a human-like consciousness – which Bradski rightfully points out as self-evident, in the minds of most honest non-believers – but neither can objective truth of any kind exist, either.

Even establishing the truth or falsity of the proposition, “I either had pancakes for breakfast yesterday, or I did not” is apparently held, according to this theistic argument, to be impossible without an intelligent, conscious designer of the universe.

This is the whole crux of the disagreement – whether the order in the universe, of which truth and reason are examples, could possibly be the result of anything other than an intelligent, conscious designer.

This is, indeed, stating the obvious, but perhaps it is helpful to articulate it. Objective morality cannot exist in a materialistic universe, only inter-subjective morality (i.e., morality that, at best, can be almost universally shared as the anatomy or DNA of homo sapiens; all cultures, for example, appear to have a taboo over the murdering of one’s parents). Objective beauty cannot exist in a materialistic universe, only inter-subjective beauty (most of us find a sunset over the ocean to be more beautiful than rain over a garbage dump, though the eyes of a poet could find profound beauty even in the latter).

What a non-believer cannot agree to – and what I’m sure Bradski would not agree too – is that objective truth cannot exist in a materialistic universe, since truth or reality – by definition – is objective and independent of the observer. Unlike morality or aesthetics, where subjectivity is the vehicle of expressing what believers argue to be objective, there is little chance of confusing “objective truth” with feelings or with human subjectivity (except maybe as regards the quantum theory). For example, someone’s feelings tell her that her beloved is not, cannot be dead, but the objective truth may be that he is.

 

[Portofino]

p.s. There is an interesting aspect in which theists grant the subjectivity of moral norms. Namely, they may claim that murder – or fornication – is objectively wrong, but only for human beings. Not for sharks, bears, or chimps. Universal morality is universal only as regards human beings.

It is one point that theists and someone like Sam Harris would have in common. Any creature on earth is subject to the laws of gravity, but only humans are subject to the laws of morality.

In that respect, morality is relative to the human being, as is beauty. The inanimate universe can be beautiful, but it is (so they would say) not necessarily recognized as beautiful in the eyes of an insect, or a skunk; nor does the sun recognize that it is beautiful. Rather, what is beautiful on earth is beautiful only in the eyes of a human being. Nor is morality “true” for the animal kingdom, in that respect. It literally is not true, not binding, to the alligator or the snake.

Yet when it comes to physical laws – as opposed to moral or aesthetic – all made of matter are bound equally, human and non-human alike.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peter

**Without God, the underlying reality itself can only be lifeless, brute fact; and morals only conditional on the transitory existence of moral subjects with no absolutely obligatory aspect, except as forcibly or conditionally imposed by some yielding power over others. **

Precisely. Atheism leads to moral relativism. Ask the Marquis de Sade.

 

[Bradski]

Atheism leads to moral relativism.

Luckily for all of us that morality is most definitely relative otherwise we’d all be living in a position where it had never changed and would never change. And it has been changing for the good over time, despite arguments to the contrary. What our forefathers accepted as entirely natural would be anathema to all of us today. And that includes members of all religions, including Christianity, as well as atheists.

The protection of children, the equality of women, the ethical treatment of animals, treatment of prisoners, punishment of law breakers, slavery, the acceptance of human rights in general – the list goes on. And the usual answer from a Christian when this is brought up is that Christianity has been the instrument by which these changes to the good have been made. Which cuts no ice I’m afraid. These are improvements that have been made within society, which obviously includes everyone of faith, including Christians, but it is not the sole domain of religion.

Please note that I am not saying that religion is not involved at any time and in any way in making improvements to our moral welfare. In some cases you could say that they have led the way. But it’s not difficult to lead when you already know the direction in which you are heading. And generally that’s what has happened and what will continue to happen. Society moves in a particular direction, relative to a position it previously held (and religion previously held) and we consider it to be progress.

The arguments put forward for change are generally secular and the reasons we move forward (relatively speaking) are generally secular. Yet when we reach that new position and look back at how poorly we behaved previously, some people stand up and say: Hey, look what we did! It’s like making your way down to the front of the canoe as it heads down river and shouting at everyone else in the boat: ‘This way!’

Guys, this is the way we were going anyway…

 

[PRmerger]

Luckily for all of us that morality is most definitely relative otherwise we’d all be living in a position where it had never changed and would never change.

Oh, I don’t think that anyone ought to be positing that morality can’t be relative. Sometimes it is correct to lie. (See Lila Rose, a heroic young woman exposing the lies of Planned Parenthood.). Sometimes it is immoral to lie. It’s relative. Indeed. :yup:

What is being said is that absolute morality exists.

And to the degree that any atheist proclaims morality consonant with this absolute morality is the degree to which he is conforming to the Absolute Moral Lawgiver.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski
**
Society moves in a particular direction, relative to a position it previously held (and religion previously held) and we consider it to be progress. **

This would have been the view of Hitler when he was advancing the superiority of the Aryan race in spite of the universal brotherhood preached by Christ.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Luckily for all of us that morality is most definitely relative otherwise we’d all be living in a position where it had never changed and would never change. And it has been changing for the good over time, despite arguments to the contrary. What our forefathers accepted as entirely natural would be anathema to all of us today. And that includes members of all religions, including Christianity, as well as atheists.

This speaks of how “relative” the premises are that support your argument. Fifty million unborn children killed by their mothers over the past thirty years does not in absolute terms demonstrate an improvement of morality. The fact that the last century saw more deaths of human beings at the hands of other humans than during all preceding history does nothing to argue your case. “Arguments to the contrary” can be dismissed as relatively inconclusive only if one assumes a “relativist” position regarding what is considered morally acceptable and morally unfortunate.

 

[tonyrey]

This speaks of how “relative” the premises are that support your argument. Fifty million unborn children killed by their mothers over the past thirty years does not in absolute terms demonstrate an improvement of morality. The fact that the last century saw more deaths of human beings at the hands of other humans than during all preceding history does nothing to argue your case. “Arguments to the contrary” can be dismissed as relatively inconclusive only if one assumes a “relativist” position regarding what is considered morally acceptable and morally unfortunate.

Irrefutable! Facts are more significant than fantasies…

 

[Bradski]

This would have been the view of Hitler when he was advancing the superiority of the Aryan race in spite of the universal brotherhood preached by Christ.

I don’t think that anyone is naïve enough to think that everyone always moves in what we now would now describe as the ‘right’ direction. Individuals, groups and even nation states can all take a retrograde step. Even such solidly Christian (and Roman Catholic) states such as Germany in the 30’s.

But the fact that we can now all agree that it was the wrong direction (and most people would have agreed at the time) shows which direction we’re heading.

Irrefutable! Facts are more significant than fantasies…

Indeed. So let’s look at some.

If we’re trying to decide if we’re becoming less civilised by killing more people (and Peter thinks that we’ve done that in the last century), then we should adjust the number of people killed according to how many people were around at the time. So we get the number of people killed per head of population. This is quite normal when doing a comparison so that we know the murder rate in New York is worse than that in Sydney because it’s calculated as homicides per 100,000 people.

Adjusted for population, the last century comes a little down the list of the worst. In fact, it shows a distinct improvement over previous centuries, despite two world wars.

A lot of people think that the First World War was one of the worst when it comes to deaths, but ever heard of the Taping Revolution? It killed 25% more in real terms. Timer Lenk? Nearly as many. More American Indians have died than were killed in Stalin’s purges. In relative terms, more people died in the fall of the Ming Dynesty in the 17the century than in the Second World War. Nearly twice as many, relatively speaking, in the slave trade.

Using practically every measure of violence available, we are now living in the most peaceful era in the history of civilisation. And that’s a fact, Tony.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Adjusted for population, the last century comes a little down the list of the worst. In fact, it shows a distinct improvement over previous centuries, despite two world wars.

I hope you don’t count those hundreds of millions who perished in the 20th Century as only relatively dead, “adjusted for population.” I doubt they would appreciate being counted as only relatively dead. They are absolutely dead in absolute numbers.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But the fact that we can now all agree that it was the wrong direction (and most people would have agreed at the time) shows which direction we’re heading.

More people accepting the killing of unborn children does not support your claim. I am not sure the “…we can now all agree…” means anything more than, in principle, “people in general” think we should act morally, which is neither provable nor disputable because it would be impossible to gather such data from historical groups and assumes that individuals in the past did not share this “sentiment” to the extent that it is extolled today.

That “fact,” even if true, is irrelevent because moral sentiments do not translate to moral action. A “nice” moral sentiment or expressions of an ethical ideal can be mustered by even the most heinous of persons. I am sure that a number of serial killers had pets they cherished or expressed a fondness for, but actions and not spoken sentiment are what count in quantifying moral change.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Indeed. So let’s look at some.

If we’re trying to decide if we’re becoming less civilised by killing more people (and Peter thinks that we’ve done that in the last century), then we should adjust the number of people killed according to how many people were around at the time. So we get the number of people killed per head of population. This is quite normal when doing a comparison so that we know the murder rate in New York is worse than that in Sydney because it’s calculated as homicides per 100,000 people.

Bradski,

You should know better than make this claim because we hashed out this topic several months ago in the following linked thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9895989&postcount=199

In the past century, deaths by government action (war and democide) was undertaken at a rate of 4.437% of the world’s population, far higher than in any other century (second highest was 1.6%. The comprehensive data was posted at the above linked thread and addressed to you.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peter, what you say here is quite right.

**I am sure that a number of serial killers had pets they cherished or expressed a fondness for, but actions and not spoken sentiment are what count in quantifying moral change. **

According to Einstein: “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.”

But then we have Einstein acting on the opposite principle in his famous letter to FDR, excerpted below.

F.D. Roosevelt
President of the United States
White House
Washington, D.C.

Sir:

  Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been com-

municated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uran-
ium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the im-
mediate future. Certain aspects of the situation which has arisen seem
to call for watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part
of the Administration. I believe therefore that it is my duty to bring
to your attention the following facts and recommendations:
In the course of the last four months it has been made probable -
through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in
America - that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction
in a large mass of uranium,by which vast amounts of power and large quant-
ities of new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears
almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.
This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs,
and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely power-
ful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this
type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy
the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However,
such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by
air.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

According to Einstein: “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.”

But then we have Einstein acting on the opposite principle in his famous letter to FDR, excerpted below…

I’ve noted before that throughout history it seems that threats, violence, or having the bigger guns and more force has often been used as a tool for change the behaviour of a people for a variety of motivations.

Is there a more moral pathway that Einstein could have taken her, such as promoting pacifism?

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think that anyone is naïve enough to think that everyone always moves in what we now would now describe as the ‘right’ direction. Individuals, groups and even nation states can all take a retrograde step. Even such solidly Christian (and Roman Catholic) states such as Germany in the 30’s.

But the fact that we can now all agree that it was the wrong direction (and most people would have agreed at the time) shows which direction we’re heading.

Indeed. So let’s look at some.

If we’re trying to decide if we’re becoming less civilised by killing more people (and Peter thinks that we’ve done that in the last century), then we should adjust the number of people killed according to how many people were around at the time. So we get the number of people killed per head of population. This is quite normal when doing a comparison so that we know the murder rate in New York is worse than that in Sydney because it’s calculated as homicides per 100,000 people.

Adjusted for population, the last century comes a little down the list of the worst. In fact, it shows a distinct improvement over previous centuries, despite two world wars.

A lot of people think that the First World War was one of the worst when it comes to deaths, but ever heard of the Taping Revolution? It killed 25% more in real terms. Timer Lenk? Nearly as many. More American Indians have died than were killed in Stalin’s purges. In relative terms, more people died in the fall of the Ming Dynesty in the 17the century than in the Second World War. Nearly twice as many, relatively speaking, in the slave trade.

Using practically every measure of violence available, we are now living in the most peaceful era in the history of civilisation. And that’s a fact, Tony.

You are forgetting the fifty million unborn children killed by their mothers, Brad, not to mention all the people who have died of disease and malnutrition as a result of human greed and selfishness…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

**Is there a more moral pathway that Einstein could have taken her, such as promoting pacifism? **

As a matter of fact, Einstein is quoted from an interview:

“Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

As a matter of fact, Einstein is quoted from an interview:

“Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing.”

As the saying goes, “Hindsight is 20/20.” It would be so much easier to make decisions if we could have full awareness of what their outcomes and consequences will be.

 

[Linux]

You are forgetting the fifty million unborn children killed by their mothers, Brad, not to mention all the people who have died of disease and malnutrition as a result of human greed and selfishness…

That argument will have no effect on a person who does not associate person-hood with a foetus.

 

[Bradski]

…not to mention all the people who have died of disease and malnutrition as a result of human greed and selfishness…

No, they were included.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

**As the saying goes, “Hindsight is 20/20.” It would be so much easier to make decisions if we could have full awareness of what their outcomes and consequences will be. **

Einstein was not supposed to be without smarts. Sure an intellect of his caliber could have foreseen letting the genie out of the bottle and the possible catastrophic consequences for the entire human race.