Objective Morality

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

I*f you and I had different gods, scriptures and philosophies but both believe in a god-given objective mortality, we could go to war in the name of all that is holy.

It’s safer to assume that it is all subjective*

Why safer? Why can’t subjective moralities also clash? Don’t they often clash with objective moralities? Don’t they often clash with each other? God was banished as the source of objective morality both in Nazi Germany and the Communist Soviet Union. The world has rarely seen a more vicious war than the one conducted between those godless subjective moralities based on the most weapons rather than the most god-given truth.

 

[grannymh]

See, this is where you lose me. What do you mean by “different objective moralities”? There can only be one objective system of morality.

If we think of morality as an object (hence “objective”), this object can only have one nature.

My apology. Didn’t mean to lose anyone. Just repeating the phase used in the post I was replying to. Then I shifted the conversation to the word morality as it is being used on CAF. At the end of my post is a question which I hope you will consider answering.
From post 39. I would like your opinion on what is actually being discussed on morality threads. To me, the examples of morals, morality or non-morality appear to be applications rather than the real thing. Applications can be freely chosen by humans based on all kinds of reasons connected to their geographical location. That is why I believe that the basic principle underlying moral or non-moral actions has to be separate from the whims of mankind.

As for a system of morality, systems are based on something which exists. A system can also be considered an application of a desired goal or to bring about a desired goal. There are just too many different ways to use words.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is unique in all the universe.

 

[inocente]

Why safer?

I notice that I wrote god-given mortality

As I don’t believe in a morality outside our heads, I think any supposed objective morality is more likely to end in fundamentalism. In the same way, the sins of Hitler and Stalin started with an utter lack of humility.

So for me humility = consensus = subjective. When Paul said we are more than conquerors he didn’t mean it as a battle cry that only we have God on our side.

 

[inocente]

From there, I would like your opinion on what is actually being discussed on morality threads.

Agreed on the meaning of objective - AntiTheist’s phrase outside-our-heads applies.

Morality is about intent and behavior. The conscience seems to start with some pre-programming, but I’m not expert enough to know whether that is due to instinct or just acquired in early life. Either way it then develops according to our experiences. You possibly won’t agree that the only real difference between us and animals in this respect is that we can think rationally before and after acting, and learn from each other.

Having read-up on ethics, my only conclusion is that it’s all relative. All philosophical systems start from different points and then end with different conclusions. Pick the one you like best. They are useful in reasoning out leading edge stuff like abortion, but ultimately it’s people who decide what is good and bad.

Personally I don’t tend to commit many sins because scrupulosity was never my strong suit. Whether God agrees with my assessment is another matter. I also think we reach collective decisions, obviously informed by faith. We should use the consensus as our default starting point but then act in love. What is right for a Buddhist may not be right for a Jew. What was right for a Bronze Age tribe may not be right for us. The only principle may be love/compassion but my wife is giving me a look that means my moral imperative is to sign off smartly - hope the above makes sense.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

What is right for a Buddhist may not be right for a Jew. What was right for a Bronze Age tribe may not be right for us.

If you throw Christianity into that subjective mix, it comes out no better off than all the others.

I don’t think that Christ endorsed subjective relativism when he said, “Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

 

[grannymh]

I notice that I wrote god-given mortality

As I don’t believe in a morality outside our heads, I think any supposed objective morality is more likely to end in fundamentalism. In the same way, the sins of Hitler and Stalin started with an utter lack of humility.

So for me humility = consensus = subjective. When Paul said we are more than conquerors he didn’t mean it as a battle cry that only we have God on our side.

The more I read threads, the more I believe that morality is a response to the universal truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect. Morality is how we treat a person, how we consider a person and so on. Immorality is when we don’t treat the person as we should. Obviously, the big word morality describes big actions. Courtesy describes actions on a milder scale.

The reason that a human person is worthy of profound respect is that he is created by God. God as the Creator has determined the value of the created one and has set the standards for behavior. The behavior of each individual is what gets him or her into heaven or not.

Blessings,
granny

Love God, love others.

 

[grannymh]

Agreed on the meaning of objective - AntiTheist’s phrase outside-our-heads applies.

You possibly won’t agree that the only real difference between us and animals in this respect is that we can think rationally before and after acting, and learn from each other.

I can think of lots of differences between animals and ourselves. However, I would agree that being able to think rationally before and after acting (I like that bit about “after acting”) and learning from each other is one of the major differences. And when one includes all that comes under being rational, it is a huge difference.

Having read-up on ethics, my only conclusion is that it’s all relative. All philosophical systems start from different points and then end with different conclusions. Pick the one you like best.

The point I would pick starts with the human person is worthy of profound respect. The reason for this worthiest is that only the human person is created in the Image of God in that the human person is called to share through knowledge and love in God’s life for eternity.

They are useful in reasoning out leading edge stuff like abortion, but ultimately it’s people who decide what is good and bad.

It is ultimately people who decide how to act. The basic truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect does not change no matter what happens to him or her. God does not change His opinion of a person who chooses to act badly. God still desires to have that person with him for eternity. Yet, God respects a person’s free choice, just as He respected Adam’s free choice and just as He respected Jesus’ free choice.

What is right for a Buddhist may not be right for a Jew. What was right for a Bronze Age tribe may not be right for us. The only principle may be love/compassion but my wife is giving me a look that means my moral imperative is to sign off smartly - hope the above makes sense.

The objective and universal truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect does not depend on a Buddhist’s affirmation. This universal truth does not depend on Jewish beliefs. The human person’s worth does not change from one century to another. This worth is present before we are born and will remain after we are born.

Morality is the term for good actions toward the life of the human person

One could also say that morality is based on God’s love for the human being.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[wanstronian]

The more I read threads, the more I believe that morality is a response to the universal truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

What makes you think this is a universal truth? Surely it’s just an opinion? An opinion I share btw, but an opinion nonetheless.

Morality is how we treat a person, how we consider a person and so on. Immorality is when we don’t treat the person as we should. Obviously, the big word morality describes big actions. Courtesy describes actions on a milder scale.

So you don’t think cruelty to animals is immoral? How about littering the countryside, or dumping toxic waste into delicate ecosystems?

The reason that a human person is worthy of profound respect is that he is created by God. God as the Creator has determined the value of the created one and has set the standards for behavior. The behavior of each individual is what gets him or her into heaven or not.

So yes - it’s your subjective opinion that humans are worthy of profound respect because it’s your subjective belief that God exists and made us that way.

Still no sign of evidence for objective morality!

 

[grannymh]

What makes you think this is a universal truth? Surely it’s just an opinion? An opinion I share btw, but an opinion nonetheless.

The human person is worthy of profound respect meets the standards for universal truth. Name them and I will explain how.

So you don’t think cruelty to animals is immoral? How about littering the countryside, or dumping toxic waste into delicate ecosystems?

Are you a mind reader?
FYI. It is my intention to stick to one subject when possible.

So yes - it’s your subjective opinion that humans are worthy of profound respect because it’s your subjective belief that God exists and made us that way.

I posted a theist position. On another thread, I started from a non-theist position including a belief in reincarnation. In any case, I do not use subjective reasoning when determining an universal objective truth. My body, with its knowledge, memory, desires, and feelings will eventually decompose. An universal objective truth does not decompose the same time I do.

Still no sign of evidence for objective morality!

That is because many posters give as “evidence” examples or applications of “morality”. No need for me to be repetitious.

Please note. Your disagreement with anything I say is acceptable because my objective existence does not depend on what you think.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What makes you think this is a universal truth? Surely it’s just an opinion? An opinion I share btw, but an opinion nonetheless.

When you opine something, this means that you (personally) hold it to be true. If you don’t believe that there is objective morality, then you don’t have an *opinions *about morality, only preferences.

 

[inocente]

The objective and universal truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect does not depend on a Buddhist’s affirmation.

I’m almost with you but would go much further, and then find that the objective truth isn’t so objective any more. An example, which I think holds water:

In Gen 1:28 God says “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it”. Which raises the question of whether we’re done with all the multiplying and subduing yet? Are we really treating the human person as sacred by eating factory-farmed chicken and making the world one big city? Does God intend us to rule over other creatures or make them extinct?

The Hopi believe all things are sacred. When they kill an animal they apologize to its spirit. They would be unlikely to cover the sacred land with freeways, mines and factories, and the population might be somewhat smaller as a result. They are not tree huggers:
Farming and gardening in northern Arizona are high-risk activities because of cutworms, coyotes, rabbits, crows, ravens, flood, drought, and the arid climate. Agriculture is an act of faith for the Hopi that serves as a religious focus as well as an economic activity. The farm and garden plots belong to the women of each clan. Working these plots provides crops unique to the Hopi diet. These agricultural activities also reinforce traditions and customs in each new generation, for as one Hopi gardener said, “This is not about growing vegetables; it is about growing kids.” - Hopi CPO

Are we doing what God wants of us? I believe the idea of one objective morality automatically does away with such doubts. Not only can it not be proven, it prevents us from questioning our understanding. A evolving plurality is so much better.

 

[Greg27]

There are a number of ways to argue there is objective morality. Such systems can be religious or secular in nature. I don’t have a Ph.D. in Philosophy, so I can’t really explain the various ethical theories in expert detail. I know a bit about natural law theory, which has been mentioned here and appears to form an objective basis for morality.

Natural law can be either secular or religious in nature. A secular type of natural law with no reference to God is the Eastern idea of ‘karma’, where it is a law of the universe our moral actions are good and evil by objective standards, and we accumulate merit or we are punished according to the goodness or evil of our actions. A religious type of natural law theory is the one adopted by Augustine and Aquinas, who held natural law is an expression of God’s wisdom and will to regulate the universe and the conduct of human beings, and serves as an objective standard by which we can measure the rightness and wrongness of an action. This theory is still the basis for much of the ethical teaching of the Roman church on various issues, such as contraception, abortion, war, biomedical ethics, etc.

The natural law theory is attractive in contrast to positivist or utilitarian theories of law and morality because positive accounts of law tend to leave out the morality or ethics of a law, while utilitarian ethics sometimes leads to questionable outcomes, i.e. an endorsement of infanticide and euthansia (as I have seen Peter Singer argue). If objective morality has no relevance to a valid law passed by an authority but the law is manifestly unjust (i.e. the law demands Jews give up their property, or for parents to murder their children for example), it is hard to see how we could argue the law is unjust without some kind of objective standard of justice or morality we could compare the secular law to.

On the other hand, I think natural law has been somewhat corrupted as it has been taken over by religious fanatics and conservatives who use it to justify dubious moral propositions which one finds hard to accept, i.e. the use of contraception in all circumstances is morally evil. The attempt to find objective ethics on an matter like abortion is also tainted by the extremism, rigidity and irrationality of the sides involved, particularly as many judgements on this issue seem based more on dogma, emotion and blind obedience to authority rather than seriously trying to think the matter through and come to a reasoned conclusion.

The notion of natural law is also undermined by Hume’s criticism of providence generally. If there is a God, and he guides all things to good, then why does God allow good people to die, often horribly and slowly, of things like cancer and disease of the body and mind? Hume rightly argued that if God existed, he should (if he was the God of classical theism) he should do more to stop suffering.

I don’t see there is any single or simplistic moral belief or set of beliefs that can give us the answer to every moral question. Even in my own profession, the moral codes do not cover every situation and scenario, and solving every ethical problem requires a lot of effort on your own to try and understand the problem and devise a sound ethical solution.

I think the same applies to any other ethical issue debated on these forums and elsewhere. Saying ‘X is so because God says it is so’ doesn’t really help. Neither does unquestioning obedience to what someone else tells you. At some point we need to think and try to find the truth, whatever it is. I don’t think it is ‘out there’ ready made for us, like a fast food dinner, waiting to be consumed blandly and passively, dispensed in a neat package from on high.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Atheists do not have to be subjectivists with respect to morality. Ayn Rand was a classic example of an atheist who believed in objective morality (and objective truth).

By the same token, some Christians (including some Catholics) have been infected with moral subjectivism (relativism) especially the ones who support legalized murder of infants in the womb and gay marriage.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Greg

On the other hand, I think natural law has been somewhat corrupted as it has been taken over by* religious fanatics and conservatives** who use it to justify dubious moral propositions which one finds hard to accept, i.e. the use of contraception in all circumstances is morally evil. The attempt to find objective ethics on an matter like abortion is also tainted by the extremism, rigidity and irrationality of the sides involved, particularly as many judgements on this issue seem based more on dogma, emotion and blind obedience to authority rather than seriously trying to think the matter through and come to a reasoned conclusion.*

I must be one of the fanatics/conservatives to whom you refer.

Unfortunately, your (what I take to be Anglican) logic doesn’t hold up well at all. You come down against the dangers of utilitarianism, and then you neglect to see that the very policy of legalized abortion is about as utilitarian as you can get. Also, you raise many red flags called* ad hominems*. Yes, I get emotional when I think of babies being killed in the womb. I hope you do, too. Yes I am blindly obedient to the authority of the Ten Commandments, including Thou Shalt Not Kill. The Catholic Church, through its bishops, constantly reminds us of the need to be blindly obedient to God’s will, no matter how many clever tricks of logic are brought forth to evade God’s will.

By the way, “reasoned conclusions,” as you call them, can only be on our side when they are also on God’s side. If they are strictly utilitarian, they are only on man’s side … and in the long run, even that isn’t true.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

*The notion of natural law is also undermined by Hume’s criticism of providence generally. If there is a God, and he guides all things to good, then why does God allow good people to die, often horribly and slowly, of things like cancer and disease of the body and mind? Hume rightly argued that if God existed, he should (if he was the God of classical theism) do more to stop suffering. *

I actually asked this question once since I noticed several people, including some atheists, making this point.

The thread is called “The Problem of Natural Evil and Suffering” if you’re interested, BTW.

In any case, the conclusion reached seeme to be that in a system as complex as the one God set up, suffering is inevitable. This is a VERY SIMPLIFIED version of the conclusion reached, and if you want more detail I encourage you to read the thread.

 

[grannymh]

Seems in today’s world, a common sense approach to some universal objective basic truths about the human person would solve the “morality/evil in the world” problem. But that would mean understanding human nature itself.

No matter. Thank you all for some interesting insights on the state of relativism. It’s time for me to take a relaxing break.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[wanstronian]

The human person is worthy of profound respect meets the standards for universal truth. Name them and I will explain how.

Ah, sorry, I didn’t realise what you meant. Presumably you mean this, rather than a literally universal truth, as in an immutable fact. My bad.

Are you a mind reader?

Not at all, it’s just you give what seemed a very well-scoped definition of morality, and it included purely the treatment of fellow humans. I was curious, that’s all.

FYI. It is my intention to stick to one subject when possible.

Again, no problem - my question was in relation to the subject, which I believe to be Morality - objective or otherwise.

I posted a theist position. On another thread, I started from a non-theist position including a belief in reincarnation. In any case, I do not use subjective reasoning when determining an universal objective truth.

Well, isn’t the “Standard for Universal Truth” essentially based on overwhelming subjective agreement?

My body, with its knowledge, memory, desires, and feelings will eventually decompose. An universal objective truth does not decompose the same time I do.

Define “Objective!” Do you mean, “in accordance with the majority of subjective?”

That is because many posters give as “evidence” examples or applications of “morality”. No need for me to be repetitious.

Please note. Your disagreement with anything I say is acceptable because my objective existence does not depend on what you think.

Can’t argue with that!

 

[wanstronian]

When you opine something, this means that you (personally) hold it to be true. If you don’t believe that there is objective morality, then you don’t have an *opinions *about morality, only preferences.

Are you saying that if I don’t believe in objective morality, that’s not an opinion, it’s just that I’d prefer it not to be true? Because that’s clearly nonsense. Belief, or lack thereof, isn’t the same thing as preference!

 

[wanstronian]

Atheists do not have to be subjectivists with respect to morality. Ayn Rand was a classic example of an atheist who believed in objective morality (and objective truth).

By the same token, some Christians (including some Catholics) have been infected with moral subjectivism (relativism) especially the ones who support legalized murder of infants in the womb and gay marriage.

They just have different subjective moral opinions to you. Your opinions are no less subjective, although to be fair you may just be propagating someone else’s subjective opinion.

In other words, neither you nor anybody else can prove that abortion and gay marriage are objectively immoral, unless you can prove objective morality. Which you can’t.

 

[grannymh]

Define “Objective!”

Please refer to post 34.