Objective Morality

[Marc_Anthony]

Does it exist, and if so how does one prove it?

Lewis tries in Mere Christianity. I copied his arguments and wrote this:

One thing that must be noticed throughout all societies in human history is that there is a moral law in place.

There are variations on this law, which we will henceforth call “natural law”, but it nevertheless exists in all human societies.

Notice I said all SOCIEITES, not all humans period. Of course, some humans are born without this natural law in place, in the same way some humans are born without arms or legs. This is, however, not a common occurrence; it is the exception, not the norm.

What do I mean by natural law? Well, let’s point out a few things common to ALL societies in human history.

-Killing is wrong

-Marriage is good. All societies have some form of it. Not all societies have marriage with one wife/husband necessarily, but all societies agree that entering into a stable relationship is good and adultery is wrong.

-Stealing is wrong. The concept of what constitutes stealing is not nescessarily the same, but stealing is considered wrong.

…And so on and so forth.

Now, we can realize quite plainly that this natural law exists, but what is man’s relationship to it?

We, of course, are free to choose whether or not to follow this natural law.

Take this scenario for instance: A man is sitting in a chair in a cafe. He gets up and gets a coffee. A man gets in, sees the recently vacated chair, and sits down. The man gets his coffee, sees the man in the chair, and starts arguing.

Man with coffee: You stole my chair!

Man in chair: Nonsense. It was empty.

…And so on and so forth.

Notice what the man in the chair DOESN’T say. “Nonsense. I reject the concept of stealing as evil, since nothing is good or evil!”

Here the value of “evil” is attached to stealing. Defense of the man’s act is involved not in reducing the moral culpability of stealing, but rather in attempting to prove through debate (argument) that what he did was not stealing.

Now, we go on to the obvious implication that this natural law, while always known and present (in most humans) can nevertheless be defied. Otherwise, nobody would steal, kill, murder, or commit adultery.

Why would one do what one knows is not good?

Probably to gain some sort of desireable end, such as money.

Now money in and of itself is not objectively good or evil, but it is certainly desireable, many times desireable enough that one would do what one knows is evil to get it.

So right now what we’ve established is that:

1. There’s a natural law common to all societies in human history.
2. We have the choice of whether or not to follow this law. However, when we do something that the law tells us is wrong, we know it, and thus feel guilty and do not make silly arguments like “stealing isn’t wrong”.

[Continued]

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Here was said atheist’s response, summarized.

He claimed:

. That an objective moral law is explained perfectly by subjective morality.

. That the “variations” I explain in the moral law are exactly what we would expect in a subjectively-moral world. In an objective moral system, these gray areas require major apologetics to explain away.

. That my analogy of being born without a moral code is akin to being born without arms and legs fails because in a universe where there is an objective moral code over all reality that asserts itself it makes no sense for one to be born without this reality.

. That killing is not considered wrong by all societies. The Aztecs and many other cultures actually espoused killing. Even today’s cultures condone - or endorse - killing. War, for example, and the death penalty.

. That marriage is not evidence of an objective moral code. It is animal behavior - mating for life - and is perfectly adequately explained under a subjective moral system

. That the wrongness of stealing is explained by subjective morality. Animals also refrain from stealing for the simple reason that a species which competes rather than cooperates is often at an evolutionary disadvantage.

. That because an objectively moral universe requires the existence of a god - or at the very least, some other outside source of morality - it is a violation of Occam’s razor unless you can find one of the following: something which is unexplainable in a subjectively moral universe or evidence of the existence of the source. I’ve presented neither.

. That we are conditioned by evolution and society to term certain acts good and others evil. In normal circumstances, no one cares whether their morality is subjective or objective, and it never comes up anyway, since our moral instincts are broadly similar. It is only in situations like this, where the truth about morality is under examination, that the subject matters at all.

…Obviously I disagree, but I don’t know how to properly refute this. Any advice?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Wow, 45 views and no responses? I’m a bit surprised, but I am interested in what people have to say, and so I’m bumping this thread.

I would think that we Cathlics would know how to defend this, considering that belief in subjective morality is incompatible with Catholicism. What do we have to say?

 

[Soulewolf]

in my own personal views of morality:

i believe true moral understanding comes from a deep personal relationship and understanding of the self. Because of this, any external system of morality is ultimately doomed to have inconsistencies.

I believe objective morality is to be found through subjective means, not objective means.

 

[fhansen]

I’d say the fact that killing-as in murder-as well as cannibalism, incest, pedophilia, human sacrifice, torture and bestiality may be condoned by some cultures goes far in proving that the doctrine of OS is valid-IOW that man, as a group or as an individual, can and does override the natural law, going against his own nature.

Otherwise we’d have to call acts that make the most seemingly vicious or depraved animal behavior look angelic natural for man, the one creature who actually possesses the free will to avoid such behavior if he so chooses…

 

[dskysmine]

Hi Marc Anthony,
I would like to help you as best as I can but this is a very hard issue to deal with because it has been dealt with from the beginning of Philosophy and it still isn’t resolved.

The main issues start when we talk about what is the base for morality.

As we all know moral laws, or morality, is based in asserting the righteousness of a particular action or the “goodness” of a particular action. The problem is that “good” isn’t objectively defined outside of our own mind. According to evolution theory, what is good is something that progressively allows for the perpetuation and well being of oneself and one’s species, but without a resource to an outside source what can be considered “well being”? There are many things that make animals “feel well” that are contrary to their own “well being”, like drugs.

My assertion is that God is the only possible source of morality and He has “embowed” us with reason to allow us to reach the same conclusions of what He sees as “Good” and “Evil”. It may seem strange because of the argument for the Problem of Evil but that can be resolved with it’s own theodicy.

Now on to the arguments you mentioned:

. That an objective moral law is explained perfectly by subjective morality.

This is a very strange and apparently incongruent argument but I will wait to see how he argues for this…

. That the “variations” I explain in the moral law are exactly what we would expect in a (…) apologetics to explain away.

This would only point to the non existence of morality at all… or at least to the non existence of an objective morality. By the way, the notion of subjective morality makes no sense whatsoever because if anyone has their own “moral code” then there is no one but themselves who follow it, and it cannot be considered a code anymore than an opinion. And in that sense, it seems to me that is what atheists really want…

. That my analogy of being born without a moral code is akin to being born without arms (…) that asserts itself it makes no sense for one to be born without this reality.

Actually I think the analogy was ill understood.
People are not born “without a moral code”. Moral code, just like any code or law, are developed through relationship and agreements. If some one cannot agree with a particular law or code, it could be easily stated that they have a different moral code. Of course, what most people consider “good” are usually things that they experienced as “good” or “pleasurable”. This, again, points to no objective morality…

. That killing is not considered wrong by all societies. (…) War, for example, and the death penalty.

That would be incorrect…
Aztects did not espouse killing as a norm, they viewed it as a sacrifice to appease their God’s wrath (natural disasters). There were punishments for murder if it was outside the proper circumstance. The death penalty is a penalty enforced by society not according to “subjective” morality. It is illogical to compare the death penalty to murder, although I do not agree with any of them.

. That marriage is not evidence of an objective moral code.(…) and is perfectly adequately explained under a subjective moral system

Marriage is not the same as “mating for life”. Marriage is distinct from it with different expectations, duties and rights according to society… That is why homosexual marriage is illogical. There is no “marriage” in the animal kingdom outside of the human species, because the human species is the only one who has free will and can consent to such a “contract”.

. That the wrongness of stealing is explained by subjective morality. Animals also refrain from (…) is often at an evolutionary disadvantage.

That would not explain why some people steal… and even more why some rich people steal, or why rational people steal. And it is incorrect to state that animals refrain from stealing… there is stealing ALL OVER the animal kingdom. Evolution is competition.

. That because an objectively moral universe requires the existence of a god - or at the very least (…) unexplainable in a subjectively moral universe or evidence of the existence of the source. I’ve presented neither.

There are many arguments for the existence of God. That is the topic for many pages and I simply cannot state all of them here. Occam’s razor isn’t a “law” or a principle to use blindly… sometimes reality is more complicated than what we assume of it. Without an eternal, absolute principle (such as God) it makes no sense to assume there is an objective, absolute morality, in fact, it would make no sense to assume that there is morality at all (just like I stated earlier about the subjective morality).

. That we are conditioned by evolution and society to term certain acts good and others evil. In normal circumstances, no one cares (…) instincts are broadly similar. It is only in situations like this, where the truth about morality is under examination, that the subject matters at all.

In fact moral issues come steaming every day in our everyday actions and when dealing with other people. It is because of our pride that we neglect what morality is because we assume that whatever we do is right and when confronted with someone who does not agree we have no obligation to follow what other people say.

I hope this was helpful…
I’m still trying to find out more about the issue that I can help you with.
Take care.

P.S.: If it’s not too much inconvenience could you tell me where that conversation with the atheist is progressing?

Daniel

 

[wanstronian]

Here was said atheist’s response, summarized.

He claimed:

. That an objective moral law is explained perfectly by subjective morality.

. That the “variations” I explain in the moral law are exactly what we would expect in a subjectively-moral world. In an objective moral system, these gray areas require major apologetics to explain away.

. That my analogy of being born without a moral code is akin to being born without arms and legs fails because in a universe where there is an objective moral code over all reality that asserts itself it makes no sense for one to be born without this reality.

. That killing is not considered wrong by all societies. The Aztecs and many other cultures actually espoused killing. Even today’s cultures condone - or endorse - killing. War, for example, and the death penalty.

. That marriage is not evidence of an objective moral code. It is animal behavior - mating for life - and is perfectly adequately explained under a subjective moral system

. That the wrongness of stealing is explained by subjective morality. Animals also refrain from stealing for the simple reason that a species which competes rather than cooperates is often at an evolutionary disadvantage.

. That because an objectively moral universe requires the existence of a god - or at the very least, some other outside source of morality - it is a violation of Occam’s razor unless you can find one of the following: something which is unexplainable in a subjectively moral universe or evidence of the existence of the source. I’ve presented neither.

. That we are conditioned by evolution and society to term certain acts good and others evil. In normal circumstances, no one cares whether their morality is subjective or objective, and it never comes up anyway, since our moral instincts are broadly similar. It is only in situations like this, where the truth about morality is under examination, that the subject matters at all.

…Obviously I disagree, but I don’t know how to properly refute this. Any advice?

I agree with your ‘opponent.’ This has been discussed at length on this forum and the ‘subjective’ argument has always made the most sense. Of course, to me it would!

There is abundant evidence that major moral tenets have fluctuated throughout the centuries; and no evidence at all of an underlying moral code that is outside what humankind has evolved for societal reasons.

Stating that “thou shalt not kill” is observed by (virtually) all human cultures doesn’t make it an objective moral code. And the condoning of slavery in the bible is clearly a reflection of the moral zeitgeist at that time.

Ultimately though, I think the proving of an absolute, immutable moral law is as impossible as proving the existence of the deity who is alleged to have put it in place.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Hi Marc Anthony,
I would like to help you as best as I can but this is a very hard issue to deal with because it has been dealt with from the beginning of Philosophy and it still isn’t resolved.

The main issues start when we talk about what is the base for morality.

As we all know moral laws, or morality, is based in asserting the righteousness of a particular action or the “goodness” of a particular action. The problem is that “good” isn’t objectively defined outside of our own mind. According to evolution theory, what is good is something that progressively allows for the perpetuation and well being of oneself and one’s species, but without a resource to an outside source what can be considered “well being”? There are many things that make animals “feel well” that are contrary to their own “well being”, like drugs.

My assertion is that God is the only possible source of morality and He has “embowed” us with reason to allow us to reach the same conclusions of what He sees as “Good” and “Evil”. It may seem strange because of the argument for the Problem of Evil but that can be resolved with it’s own theodicy.

Now on to the arguments you mentioned:

This is a very strange and apparently incongruent argument but I will wait to see how he argues for this…

This would only point to the non existence of morality at all… or at least to the non existence of an objective morality. By the way, the notion of subjective morality makes no sense whatsoever because if anyone has their own “moral code” then there is no one but themselves who follow it, and it cannot be considered a code anymore than an opinion. And in that sense, it seems to me that is what atheists really want…

Actually I think the analogy was ill understood.
People are not born “without a moral code”. Moral code, just like any code or law, are developed through relationship and agreements. If some one cannot agree with a particular law or code, it could be easily stated that they have a different moral code. Of course, what most people consider “good” are usually things that they experienced as “good” or “pleasurable”. This, again, points to no objective morality…

That would be incorrect…
Aztects did not espouse killing as a norm, they viewed it as a sacrifice to appease their God’s wrath (natural disasters). There were punishments for murder if it was outside the proper circumstance. The death penalty is a penalty enforced by society not according to “subjective” morality. It is illogical to compare the death penalty to murder, although I do not agree with any of them.

Marriage is not the same as “mating for life”. Marriage is distinct from it with different expectations, duties and rights according to society… That is why homosexual marriage is illogical. There is no “marriage” in the animal kingdom outside of the human species, because the human species is the only one who has free will and can consent to such a “contract”.

That would not explain why some people steal… and even more why some rich people steal, or why rational people steal. And it is incorrect to state that animals refrain from stealing… there is stealing ALL OVER the animal kingdom. Evolution is competition.

There are many arguments for the existence of God. That is the topic for many pages and I simply cannot state all of them here. Occam’s razor isn’t a “law” or a principle to use blindly… sometimes reality is more complicated than what we assume of it. Without an eternal, absolute principle (such as God) it makes no sense to assume there is an objective, absolute morality, in fact, it would make no sense to assume that there is morality at all (just like I stated earlier about the subjective morality).

In fact moral issues come steaming every day in our everyday actions and when dealing with other people. It is because of our pride that we neglect what morality is because we assume that whatever we do is right and when confronted with someone who does not agree we have no obligation to follow what other people say.

I hope this was helpful…
I’m still trying to find out more about the issue that I can help you with.
Take care.

P.S.: If it’s not too much inconvenience could you tell me where that conversation with the atheist is progressing?

Daniel

Thanks for your help!

Oh, it’s an e-mail discussion.

This is indeed a difficult issue. I’m trying to copy, as best I cam, the arguments of C.S. Lewis that he used in Mere Christianity. He did his best to establish natural law and objective morality first, as I’m tryng to, and then used it as evidence for the existence of God.

Now, on to what you said:

. I agree that a subjective morality makes no sense. NO morality makes much more sense than a subjective one.

. it seems though, to me at least, that you are stating that there is in fact NO morality at all. Correct me if I’m wrong?

. I agree, killing is considered wrtong by all societies. The atheist was wrong there.

. Good point, marriage is indeed different than mating for life.

. Good idea to point out that animals steal.

. You’re right, for morality we need God, but I’m tring to use C.S. Lewis’s method, demonstrating that there is indeed objective morality and then using that to point to God.

. This…“It is because of our pride that we neglect what morality is because we assume that whatever we do is right and when confronted with someone who does not agree we have no obligation to follow what other people say.”

…Is a good quote, thanks. I’ll probably paraphrase it.

Still, it seems like now we’re arguing for NO morality, not objective, and I don’t really want to do that.

 

[inocente]

I think there’s no way to prove it.

Certainly Paul said that the law of the Jews was written on the hearts of the Gentiles, but he did that in the context of discarding the Jewish-only purity laws without being totally precise. More importantly, he was speaking in Christian love, where decisions about what is right and wrong are not necessarily clear cut. If starving people rush an aid truck and steal what they can to feed their families, is that the same as a bank robber intent on a personal retirement fund?

You could try to do prove it empirically by finding those things that have always been deemed good and bad throughout all societies. You’d have to avoid the temptation of excluding societies that you feel are objectionable though. You would probably find few constants, and even then it doesn’t necessarily prove that those things are wired into us as an unchanging natural law.

Lastly, and let’s not go there, if Darwin is correct then we must still be evolving.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I think there’s no way to prove it.

Certainly Paul said that the law of the Jews was written on the hearts of the Gentiles, but he did that in the context of discarding the Jewish-only purity laws without being totally precise. More importantly, he was speaking in Christian love, where decisions about what is right and wrong are not necessarily clear cut. If starving people rush an aid truck and steal what they can to feed their families, is that the same as a bank robber intent on a personal retirement fund?

You could try to do prove it empirically by finding those things that have always been deemed good and bad throughout all societies. You’d have to avoid the temptation of excluding societies that you feel are objectionable though. You would probably find few constants, and even then it doesn’t necessarily prove that those things are wired into us as an unchanging natural law.

Lastly, and let’s not go there, if Darwin is correct then we must still be evolving.

If this is al true I find it shocking because it makes all of Lewis’s arguments for God’s existence in Mere Christianity utterly invalid, and it’s considered a classic of Christian apologetics.

 

[dskysmine]

I apologise if my “help” was more distressing than helpful.
I think that to make any kind of “proof” for morality is not reasonable because it requires an impossible amount of “proof”. I think that “Morality”, and just like it, “Reason” and just like it, “Grace”, are all part of God’s unique Love towards us. I honestly don’t know if there is any more life in this Universe outside our planet, but it seems to me that looking at our planet the fact that only one species is “conscious” and “rational” and “moral”, is a reasonable argument to the existence of a God that is the base for that “rationality”, “consciousness” and “morality”.

One could ask why do we have a medium height of X feet? Why do we have 5 fingers and not 4?.. etc…

The Telological argument (as I see it) is one of the most obvious ones to me.

The fact that we can find “reasonable” reasons to declare why something is “wrong” or “right”, means that such principles are in fact reasonable, and if they are in fact reasonable they have to be objective. You cannot convince some one to do something you consider good without appealing to their reason. Our innate rationality and sense of morality is the best argument for an objective morality I can find, but, as I already said, it makes no sense without God.

Hope this helped…

Take care,
Daniel

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I apologise if my “help” was more distressing than helpful.
I think that to make any kind of “proof” for morality is not reasonable because it requires an impossible amount of “proof”. I think that “Morality”, and just like it, “Reason” and just like it, “Grace”, are all part of God’s unique Love towards us. I honestly don’t know if there is any more life in this Universe outside our planet, but it seems to me that looking at our planet the fact that only one species is “conscious” and “rational” and “moral”, is a reasonable argument to the existence of a God that is the base for that “rationality”, “consciousness” and “morality”.

One could ask why do we have a medium height of X feet? Why do we have 5 fingers and not 4?.. etc…

The Telological argument (as I see it) is one of the most obvious ones to me.

The fact that we can find “reasonable” reasons to declare why something is “wrong” or “right”, means that such principles are in fact reasonable, and if they are in fact reasonable they have to be objective. You cannot convince some one to do something you consider good without appealing to their reason. Our innate rationality and sense of morality is the best argument for an objective morality I can find, but, as I already said, it makes no sense without God.

Hope this helped…

Take care,
Daniel

Thnaks for trying to help.

The reason I’m confused about all of you saying this is a bad argument is that C.S> Lewis made basically this exact same argument in Mere Christinaity-and it’s considered a classic in Christian apologetics!

Surely there must be something to it…

 

[grannymh]

Objective morality is based on this universal truth.
The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[FaithJoy]

I don’t understand, so what we are saying here is, in respect to murder, honor killings in the Muslim world is considered wrong? Wouldn’t this be a norm in some Muslim countries?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

. That an objective moral law is explained perfectly by subjective morality.

How so?

. That the “variations” I explain in the moral law are exactly what we would expect in a subjectively-moral world. In an objective moral system, these gray areas require major apologetics to explain away.

Why should there be ANY similarities in a subjectively moral world?

. That my analogy of being born without a moral code is akin to being born without arms and legs fails because in a universe where there is an objective moral code over all reality that asserts itself it makes no sense for one to be born without this reality.

You might be born without the ability to access this reality. That makes perfect sense.

. That killing is not considered wrong by all societies. The Aztecs and many other cultures actually espoused killing. Even today’s cultures condone - or endorse - killing. War, for example, and the death penalty.

Can you give me a citation for that Aztec view? Are you talking about human sacrifice? But human sacrifice is meant, in the culture, as a tremendous affirmation of the sacredness of life. Thus the central motivating factor behind the killing prohibition is maintained even by human sacrifice.

. That marriage is not evidence of an objective moral code. It is animal behavior - mating for life - and is perfectly adequately explained under a subjective moral system

This is a decent objection.

. That the wrongness of stealing is explained by subjective morality. Animals also refrain from stealing for the simple reason that a species which competes rather than cooperates is often at an evolutionary disadvantage.

But here we are presuming that the moral code does not extend, in some way, to animals. On the contrary, I would expect that the rudiments of moral behavior would exist in animals, insofar as they are mentally developed.

. That because an objectively moral universe requires the existence of a god - or at the very least, some other outside source of morality - it is a violation of Occam’s razor unless you can find one of the following: something which is unexplainable in a subjectively moral universe or evidence of the existence of the source. I’ve presented neither.

Why does morality require the existence of God? You might just as well say that the existence of ANYTHING requires the existence of God. And I expect this is true, but the atheist won’t admit that. And many atheists believe that objective morality exists, but not God.

Personally, I agree that – unless God exists – there is little *reason *to be moral. But many theologians believe that the moral law is external to God. Indeed, I think we use moral truth to argue for God, not the other way around!

QUOTE]. That we are conditioned by evolution and society to term certain acts good and others evil. In normal circumstances, no one cares whether their morality is subjective or objective, and it never comes up anyway, since our moral instincts are broadly similar.

Blatantly false. In normal circumstances, when we say Hitler did very bad things, we mean that objectively. Anyone who doesn’t has a very strange view of Hitler. :sad_yes:

 

[grannymh]

Seems to me that there are very few people who understand or can exlain the difference between objective and subjective morality.

Furthermore, morality is a response to something. Is the response subjective or objective? What is the something to which there is a moral response? Is the something subjective or objective?

Now a moral code can be based on either objective or subjective reasoning. Natural law should be detected by objective reasoning and not subjective reasoning. However, the prevalent underlying assumption is that natural law is discovered by subjective reasoning because there are so many different societies in the world…

 

[grannymh]

.

What do I mean by natural law? Well, let’s point out a few things common to ALL societies in human history.

-Killing is wrong

The action of killing is an application or a response to some principle.The principle of when killing is considered right or wrong appears differently in various geographic locations. This is because different societies often use subjective reasoning which is unstable…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Now a moral code can be based on either objective or subjective reasoning. Natural law should be detected by objective reasoning and not subjective reasoning. However, the prevalent underlying assumption is that natural law is discovered by subjective reasoning because there are so many different societies in the world…

All human reasoning is subjective. We do not have the ability to “flip a switch”, and know we are being objective. But it does not follow that objective truth (about morality or anything else) does not exist, nor that subjective human reasoning cannot access that truth.

 

[wanstronian]

All human reasoning is subjective. We do not have the ability to “flip a switch”, and know we are being objective. But it does not follow that objective truth (about morality or anything else) does not exist, nor that subjective human reasoning cannot access that truth.

How would one know?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How would one know?

Well, what is knowledge? Some would say “justified true belief”. In this case, we know something if a) it is true, b) we believe it, and c) we have a good reason for believing it. This would always put second-order knowledge on a less stable basis than first-order knowledge, but it would not make it impossible, by any means.

Can subjective reasoning give us good reasons to believe something? I should say so. For example, I have good reason to believe that my daughter likes me. Still, my reasoning about the subject is hardly objective!