The Existence of Objective Morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timothysis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Filippo_Bruno said:
As far as I know, Arendt’s novel contribution to the idea of grave evil was that it was neither radical nor inexplicable, but that it can happen when society or culture “normalizes” acts that are evil.
Click to expand...
See Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism (OT), Preface to the First Edition, pp. viii-ix, “…And if it is true that in the final stages of totalitarianism, an absolute evil appears (absolute because it can no longer be deduced from humanly comprehensible motives), it is also true that without it we might never have known the truly radical nature of Evil …”

Also, OT, p. 459, “… Yet, in their effort to prove that everything is possible, the totalitarian regimes have discovered without knowing it that there are crimes which men can neither punish nor forgive. When the impossible was made possible it became the unpunishable, unforgivable absolute evil which could no longer be understood and explained by the evil motives of self-interest, greed, covetousness, resentment, lust for power, and cowardice … it is inherent in our entire philosophical tradition that we cannot conceive of a “radical evil” … we may say that radical evil has emerged in a system in which all men have become equally superfluous …”

Note the emphasis on the incomprehensibility of the evil … in other cites, Arendt refers to the “abyss” …

For more on this, see Richard Bernstein’s Radical Evil: A Philosophical Investigation.
 
Ender said:
Yes. Two claims: God must exist for morality to objectively exist, and there must be some way to come to know what that morality is. If either of those claims is wrong then there is no such thing as objective morality.
Of course people can come together and decide on a common morality; no one disputes this. It cannot be said of a morality that is decided by vote, however, that it could be anything other than subjective morality. Surely there should be no dispute about that either.
If God and objective morality exist then what sense does it make to pretend they don’t because of disagreements over which understanding of his will is correct? Besides, you haven’t simplified the problem because now you have to choose between an even greater collection of conflicting philosophies. What you have done is introduce the question of why one should be moral in the first place and I don’t think you have an answer for that one.
Yes, I think I can understand your explanation, I just think your solution doesn’t address the problem you just raised. A plethora of competing views exists for both the believer and the humanist.
Well, it may also be the case that NO humanistic philosophy sees the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That in itself does NOT mean there no truth, but only that we all disagree regarding what the truth is and may all be lacking the whole Truth. So we’re back to … what?? I don’t think you realize that the arguments you present against religions apply equally to humanism.
No. It was the common perception held by mankind. The state of science at that time was insufficient even for Copernicus (and Galileo after him) to prove that geocentrism was wrong.

Ender
Click to expand...
I don’t say that G-d does not exist. What I say is that because of the numerous perceptions and interpretations across and within different religions regarding the nature of G-d, what G-d has revealed to us, and what G-d expects of us, objective morality cannot be found in religion as a whole. Therefore, according to humanists, religion itself–speaking broadly about the great diversity of religions and particular perspectives within each–is not objective and is in fact humanistic, since it depends on human interpretation. It’s not so much a matter of comparing religious beliefs to humanistic beliefs, as if they are totally different entities; rather, religious beliefs are regarded as a subset of humanistic beliefs: that is, they too are subjective. True, the same arguments apply to humanism per se due to the diversity of its beliefs; but actually one can find some common ground regarding morals in humanism just as one can find some common moral ground across religions. It’s not really the case that every single humanist has their own set of morals any more than it is the case that every single believer in every single religion has THEIR own set of morals. Neither statement is exactly true; but both statements can potentially be true. In short, humanists believe it is folly to say that believers (again, meaning believers across and within all the various faiths) are not equally diverse and informed by subjective perceptions and interpretations of their given faiths as are humanists, since they are themselves humanists in a general sense. Finally, I have not introduced the question of why one should be moral in the first place; it is you who have inserted that question. My specific point is that religion offers no better solution to the issue of moral objectivity than humanism does.
 
meltzerboy said:
My specific point is that religion offers no better solution to the issue of moral objectivity than humanism does.
Click to expand...
Religion offers a better solution because unlike humanism it does not make man the measure of all things. Only the belief that we are created by God is a bulwark against the rejection of the sanctity of life. In a secular world nothing is sacred…
 
Since morals contain the inherent value of an individual, it seems only logical that moral laws should come from a moral lawgiver. Morals are not an abstract thing, nor are they a set of rules. Morality is based upon God’s absolute nature. Lying, for instance, is always wrong not only because God said “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” (Exodus 20:16) but also because it’s simply impossible for God ever to lie: “God is not a man, that he should lie…” (Numbers 23:19). Lying goes against the very nature God. Atheists, though, don’t seem to have this kind of consistency dwelling within them because they seem to consider that morals are always individually based, which is in fact a contradiction. For example, one atheist may believe that it’s okay to lie to the government and yet at the very same instant of time another atheist may believe that it’s not okay to lie to the government. And since the non-moral objectivity practiced by both atheists in the example was unable to cause a conclusion that didn’t contradict itself, the belief that true morals are individually based has no true justification. A person therefore cannot have an objective (absolute) moral law within his or her personhood unless the moral law is inherently woven into that person by the inherently moral Being whom we call God.
 
tonyrey said:
Religion offers a better solution because unlike humanism it does not make man the measure of all things. Only the belief that we are created by God is a bulwark against the rejection of the sanctity of life. In a secular world nothing is sacred…
Click to expand...
But you’re just displacing the faith in the case of religion. Humanism encourages us to have faith in our own perceptions of morality while religion encourages us to have faith that God exists and that we know what he considers moral. If you could “prove” the legitimacy of the Catholic moral system a-priori (i.e. without invoking faith) then that proof would work equally well in a world with no God.
 
tonyrey said:
Religion offers a better solution because unlike humanism it does not make man the measure of all things. Only the belief that we are created by God is a bulwark against the rejection of the sanctity of life. In a secular world nothing is sacred…
Click to expand...
It seems to me it makes man’s interpretation the measure. How else could it be when some churches say gay marriage is immoral, some churches marry gay people. Some faiths say there is heaven and hell, some faiths say there is heaven and paradise on earth to come. Some faiths say you can divorce and use contraception and dont even condemn abortion while others say all these are immoral.
Who is saying what’s moral and immoral. Man. Based on man’s interpretation of the holy writings of their faiths.
Seems to me that’s why there is so many faiths, and so many subdivisions with those faiths.
All differing on some pretty major moral issues.
So none of it seems to me to be either objective or absolute.

Sarah x 🙂
 
atheistgirl said:
Religion offers a better solution because unlike humanism it does not make man the measure of all things. Only the belief that we are created by God is a bulwark against the rejection of the sanctity of life. In a secular world nothing is sacred
Click to expand...
Sarah, disagreement does not imply that everyone is mistaken on everything! It merely shows that the truth is elusive. We are not expected to be infallible but reasonable…

There is one objective, absolute principle to which everyone should conform - that we should obey our conscience and do what we are convinced is right. In Shakespeare’s words:

“This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.”
Click to expand...
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
So in other words, it is the fact that God will enforce his morality that makes it different from a human derived morality? If the only thing that legitimizes morality is guaranteed
enforcement, then of course if there were no God there would be no legitimate moral system.
Click to expand...
I didn’t mention enforcement- justice simply implies righteousness, to be just, without which there can be no morality. Unless we’re convinced that a “higher authority” possesses this justice and determines morality for humans then we can have no degree of certainty that objective morality even exists- or that it necessarily has any significance-and the whole argument becomes moot. OTOH, I suppose that the upholding of justice might be a greater concern for those victims of awful atrocities who’ve cried out for it down through the centuries without satisfaction. They might prefer to know justice will ultimately be served.
TheTrueCentrist said:
I partially agree. However, the “overrideability” of morality is a personal problem. Atheists will transgress their conscience just like Christians. Certainly both groups may try to justify their actions later, but the fact of their sin does not reveal any inadequacies with their moral beliefs.
Click to expand...
I think our actions betray our moral beliefs. IOWs while we may or may not have higher ideals for ourselves, what we actually* do* is indicative of what we think is right, even if we might not like to admit it. At least at the time a particular sin is committed, humans, being moral agents, have to rationalize or justify their behavior before they do it-in order to enable themselves to do it.
TheTrueCentrist said:
If their rationalization manages to override their innate sense of what is right and wrong, it would be up to those whose sense of right and wrong were not compromised by that same rationalization to challenge that persons rationalization.
Click to expand...
We get back to having to determine just who constitutes the uncompromised group, IOW who’s right and who’s wrong. When GWB decided to invade Iraq, he, along with many others, thought it was the right thing to do. Myself, and the Catholic Church according to her spokespeople at the time incidentally, thought it was wrong.
 
meltzerboy

**My specific point is that religion offers no better solution to the issue of moral objectivity than humanism does. **

So are you saying the Ten Commandments offer no better solution to the issue of moral objectivity than the views of a Voltaire or a Rousseau?
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
]Religion offers a better solution because unlike humanism it does not make man the measure of all things. Only the belief that we are created by God is a bulwark against the rejection of the sanctity of life. In a secular world nothing is sacred…
Click to expand...
Whatever we believe or disbelieve we all have to have faith in something - unless we are illogical nihilists. Presumably humanists have faith in humanity but their concepts of morality are not all identical. Religious people have faith in God and humanity but our concepts of morality are not all identical. Our morality is founded on the belief that life is a gift from God. It must therefore be immensely valuable - unlike the humanist’s belief that life is ultimately purposeless and hence objectively valueless. We have a rational foundation for morality which humanists lack yet we are also required to have faith in our own moral judgments because the Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience. So we have the best of both worlds!
Click to expand...
 
Charlemagne_II said:
meltzerboy

**My specific point is that religion offers no better solution to the issue of moral objectivity than humanism does. **

So are you saying the Ten Commandments offer no better solution to the issue of moral objectivity than the views of a Voltaire or a Rousseau?
Click to expand...
Yes, in the sense that even the Ten Commandments have been open to subjective interpretation. One of the most controversial of the commandments is “Honor the Sabbath Day to keep It Holy.” Assuming the commandments were divinely inspired (and not all believers agree), this commandment is controversial in at least two ways. First, does it mean a specific day? Jews and Seventh-Day Adventists say yes; many (other) Christians say no. What I mean is that, while some Christians honor what is called the Lord’s Day (the day Jesus was resurrected), many state that the Sabbath Day is to be found in “resting in Jesus,” rather than a specific day of the week. The second controversy, among those that honor the Sabbath Day on the seventh day, is what does rest mean? Orthodox Jews are quite strict on this point, while Conservative Jews less so, and Reform Jews much less so. (I don’t know how Seventh-Day Adventists specifically honor the Sabbath Day.) For Muslims, the Sabbath Day is Friday (again, I don’t know what form honoring that day takes.) And outside the Abrahamic faiths, I don’t know if there is a Sabbath Day, and if there is, how it is honored. Take another commandment: "Thou shalt not kill (translated from the Hebrew as murder). This commandment too is interpreted in various ways: for example, Quakers and the Amish, I believe, are total pacifists even with regard to self-defense. This is not the case in Catholicism, Judaism, and most (other) forms of Protestantism. And Catholics and most Protestants apply the definition of killing to the unborn child, whereas–under certain circumstances–Jews and others do not. Another commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.” How should we define stealing? The definition varies according to the religion. Or, let’s go to the very first commandment: “I am the Lord thy G-d; thou shalt have no other gods before me.” I don’t have to remind you, do I, of the multiplicity of religious beliefs concerning who exactly G-d is: Jews and Muslims believe only in G-d the Father albeit they give Him different names, whereas most Christians believe in a Triune G-d (while insisting they believe in one G-d), who assumes three persons or faces. And other religions may not obey that commandment at all since they are polytheistic; some, however, only worship one G-d, while believing in others (what is this called; the name escapes me?). Or the commandment forbidding graven images: some Protestants and Jews accuse Catholics of tottering on idolatry by praying to intercessors: the Virgin Mary and the Saints in the form of graven images. And so on. No, there is very little objective morality here. One might argue, perhaps correctly, that at least there are some guidelines via the Ten Commandments, as opposed to humanism and deism (Voltaire may have been a deist, not an atheist). But this is not exactly true: there are guidelines in humanistic philosophy as well, and of course variations, just as there are variations in the HUMAN INTERPRETATION of the Ten Commandments. Note I am not saying that the Ten Commandments have no value; neither am I saying that G-D HIMSELF does not have an objective truth and morality. What I am saying is that we humans are often not so good at interpreting G-d’s morality, the proof of which are the numerous interpretations we offer. Believers can hardly agree with each other on anything in their respective religious teachings (and, to an extent, even within their own religion), that is, nothing that most humanists cannot also agree with them about.
 
meltzerboy

**Note I am not saying that the Ten Commandments have no value; neither am I saying that G-D HIMSELF does not have an objective truth and morality. What I am saying is that we humans are often not so good at interpreting G-d’s morality, the proof of which are the numerous interpretations we offer. Believers can hardly agree with each other on anything in their respective religious teachings (and, to an extent, even within their own religion), that is, nothing that most humanists cannot also agree with them about. **

But this is to confuse disagreement over objective morality with the conclusion there can be no objective morality.

If Mother Teresa says we should attend to the poor and the ill, and Hitler says we should just get rid of them, do you not see that one ethic is objectively superior to the other? Are mother Teresa and Hitler both exercising merely subjective moralities?
 
tonyrey said:
Whatever we believe or disbelieve we all have to have faith in something - unless we are illogical nihilists. Presumably humanists have faith in humanity but their concepts of morality are not all identical. Religious people have faith in God and humanity but our concepts of morality are not all identical. Our morality is founded on the belief that life is a gift from God. It must therefore be immensely valuable - unlike the humanist’s belief that life is ultimately purposeless and hence objectively valueless. We have a rational foundation for morality which humanists lack yet we are also required to have faith in our own moral judgments because the Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience. So we have the best of both worlds!
Click to expand...
But the only reason you believe your morality to have a “rational basis” is your faith in God. Faith is an inherently subjective, non-empirical position on the evidence. Certainly you can argue your faith is reasonable, but it is also possible to argue that “morality = minimization of suffering” is reasonable.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
meltzerboy

**Note I am not saying that the Ten Commandments have no value; neither am I saying that G-D HIMSELF does not have an objective truth and morality. What I am saying is that we humans are often not so good at interpreting G-d’s morality, the proof of which are the numerous interpretations we offer. Believers can hardly agree with each other on anything in their respective religious teachings (and, to an extent, even within their own religion), that is, nothing that most humanists cannot also agree with them about. **

But this is to confuse disagreement over objective morality with the conclusion there can be no objective morality.

If Mother Teresa says we should attend to the poor and the ill, and Hitler says we should just get rid of them, do you not see that one ethic is objectively superior to the other? Are mother Teresa and Hitler both exercising merely subjective moralities?
Click to expand...
I don’t see how Hitler can be right and Mother Teresa (isn’t she a Saint now?) can be wrong here. But I thought objective morality would have to refer to some of the less well-defined issues as well. In addition, would any humanist (who does not believe in objective morality) make an argument that we should get rid of the poor instead of helping them? I doubt it! They are called HUMANISTS, after all, not butchers. The problem, however, even in this example, is how should we help the poor? What is our individual obligation? How much money should we give: tithing, for example? What if we have little money; are we still obligated to give something? Should we donate our time instead of money? Should we listen to our individual conscience? Should we just pray for the poor: faith rather than action? By means of a socialist state? What does our particular religion teach us in this and other matters? And how do we interpret those teachings? You see it still comes down to individual subjectivity, at least in the details, but those are often also important.
 
atheistgirl said:
It seems to me it makes man’s interpretation the measure. How else could it be when some churches say gay marriage is immoral, some churches marry gay people. Some faiths say there is heaven and hell, some faiths say there is heaven and paradise on earth to come. Some faiths say you can divorce and use contraception and dont even condemn abortion while others say all these are immoral.
Who is saying what’s moral and immoral. Man. Based on man’s interpretation of the holy writings of their faiths.
Seems to me that’s why there is so many faiths, and so many subdivisions with those faiths.
All differing on some pretty major moral issues.
So none of it seems to me to be either objective or absolute.

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
That is merely saying that in order to accept catholic (or any particular christian) morality as the objective truth requires faith in more than just God.
 
centrist

but it is also possible to argue that “morality = minimization of suffering” is reasonable

Faith and the natural law are consistent with each other. Matthew 25 is consistent with “morality = minimization of suffering”

God gives us reason and natural grace to use our reason. He also gives us the super-abundant grace of Revelation to remind us of the natural grace he has given us, so that we do not lead ourselves astray with laziness or venality.
 
atheistgirl said:
It seems to me it makes man’s interpretation the measure. How else could it be when some churches say gay marriage is immoral, some churches marry gay people. Some faiths say there is heaven and hell, some faiths say there is heaven and paradise on earth to come. Some faiths say you can divorce and use contraception and dont even condemn abortion while others say all these are immoral.
Who is saying what’s moral and immoral. Man. Based on man’s interpretation of the holy writings of their faiths.
Seems to me that’s why there is so many faiths, and so many subdivisions with those faiths.
All differing on some pretty major moral issues.
So none of it seems to me to be either objective or absolute.

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
But doesn’t it seem just as odd that people can have widely varying moral beliefs, whether or not religion is involved? I mean, if any particular moral stance is right, then why wouldn’t everyone be on the same page?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top