The Existence of Objective Morality

[Timothysis]

Please excuse my ignorance here but I don’t know exactly how to phrase my question, so I will simply ask it as such;

How can objective morality exist if ourselves and the physical world came into being through mere, unguided chance?

In other words, if God does not exist, then can there be such a thing as objective morality? If so, please explain how.

Thank you.

Tim

 

[Daval]

If I’m not mistaken, I believe Utilitarianism as proposed by John Stuart Mill to be a code of ethics that is considered objective.
Of course, while it doesn’t inherently contradict the idea of there being a God, it does clash with the more traditional objective morality that is Natural Law.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In other words, if God does not exist, then can there be such a thing as objective morality? If so, please explain how.

Ayn Rand was both an atheist and defended objective morality. I can’t remember her argument for objective morality, but it must be similar to her argument for objective truth, which you ought to be able to Google.

 

[Joan1969]

Please excuse my ignorance here but I don’t know exactly how to phrase my question, so I will simply ask it as such;

How can objective morality exist if ourselves and the physical world came into being through mere, unguided chance?

In other words, if God does not exist, then can there be such a thing as objective morality? If so, please explain how.

Thank you.

Tim

Hi Timothysis,

I’m not so sure that atheism would contradict objective reality. What it seems to me it would do is to trivialize everything, especially compared to Christianity. We might (theoretically) be able to come up with a fairly stable moral code based on the realities of human nature as we find it, but it would be strictly based on practical utilitarian needs, not the ultimate dignity and worth of an individual who is a child of God destined for eternal life in heaven.

It would seem to me that the good of the individual would necessarily need to be sacrificed to the greater good of the society, under any atheistic system. Individual rights (e.g. property rights) might be recognized, but only because the consistent recognition of such rights is ultimately good for the whole society (in this case, property rights yielding economic growth). Human worth is not really the foundation.

A true culture of life could not exist under such a philosophical system.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[atheistgirl]

It would seem to me that the good of the individual would necessarily need to be sacrificed to the greater good of the society, under any atheistic system. Individual rights (e.g. property rights) might be recognized, but only because the consistent recognition of such rights is ultimately good for the whole society (in this case, property rights yielding economic growth). Human worth is not really the foundation.

A true culture of life could not exist under such a philosophical system.

God Bless,
Joan

The highlighted bit above … the good of the individual is always second to the good of society at large.

I disagree with the points made in this thread - the value and worth of the human being is core to the value system of any atheist that’s even half human!!!

For me, one of the core differences between my actions, and the actions of those with a faith, is I do what I do, becuase it is the right thing to do - I dont do it for any future reward -which I dont believe in. I take care of my family, run my business ethically, care for the environment, and love those around me, because it’s simply the right thing to do. No other reason.

Sarah x

 

[Timothysis]

one of the core differences between my actions, and the actions of those with a faith, is I do what I do, becuase it is the right thing to do - I dont do it for any future reward -which I dont believe in. I take care of my family, run my business ethically, care for the environment, and love those around me, because it’s simply the right thing to do. No other reason.

Hi Sarah! Thanks for the response.

I have heard this reasoning before but I find that I have a problem with it.

People of faith (hopefully) don’t do things based on the idea of a future reward but because they are the objectively right thing to do. It is a question of Justice and Charity. Jesus said that love of neighbor as our self is part of the summation of the Law. In this regard (for me), we are speaking of an objective reality. If one does not believe in this objective reality, then I wonder where a sense of morality arises.

I have heard before of the notion of behavior being for the good of society but that always struck me as a necessary tacit consensus among the masses that, absent of any objective morality, need something to keep society in order. Behavior would either be accepted or repressed by a subjective agreement among society, no matter how grandiose or degenerate that behavior.

I do admire your sense of doing the right thing, though!

 

[Timothysis]

I’m not so sure that atheism would contradict objective reality. What it seems to me it would do is to trivialize everything, especially compared to Christianity. We might (theoretically) be able to come up with a fairly stable moral code based on the realities of human nature as we find it, but it would be strictly based on practical utilitarian needs, not the ultimate dignity and worth of an individual who is a child of God destined for eternal life in heaven.

It would seem to me that the good of the individual would necessarily need to be sacrificed to the greater good of the society, under any atheistic system. Individual rights (e.g. property rights) might be recognized, but only because the consistent recognition of such rights is ultimately good for the whole society (in this case, property rights yielding economic growth). Human worth is not really the foundation.

A true culture of life could not exist under such a philosophical system.

Hi Joan.

Yours is a very interesting post and one that I agree with.

Sarah gave her opinion but I would really like if others could also explain how objective morality can exists if existence is simply a product of unguided evolution.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tim

**Sarah gave her opinion but I would really like if others could also explain how objective morality can exists if existence is simply a product of unguided evolution. **

Sarah’s opinion is consistent with Catholic teaching, even though she would not recognize it as such. In Catholic theology God plants in us a sense of right and wrong, and also plants in us a conscience to decide between the two. Catholics and atheists are given the same equipment with which to make moral judgments. The difference is that the atheist denies the source of morality comes from on high. As a consequence, very often the atheist point of view, anchored in nature but defiant of nature’s God, can be swayed away from its rightful course by a weak or seduced will that has managed to substitute an evil course of action for a good one. I hasten to add that this can happen to the Catholic as well, but that the Catholic at least has recourse to a method of correcting and atoning for his corruption that the atheist has denied exists.

Indeed, prayer is useless for the atheist and therefore he must rely entirely on the power of reason and will to overcome his own evil actions or the evil actions of others. As to promoting good action among others, I don’t see the atheist doing much of that since atheism is rooted in the individualist approach to truth. Every man is entitled to craft his own morality with no interference from religion or the state.

Good luck with that formula for the good society.

 

[fhansen]

Please excuse my ignorance here but I don’t know exactly how to phrase my question, so I will simply ask it as such;

How can objective morality exist if ourselves and the physical world came into being through mere, unguided chance?

In other words, if God does not exist, then can there be such a thing as objective morality? If so, please explain how.

Thank you.

Tim

No, if there’s nothing “bigger” than humans that determines human morality, then morality is relative-to human opinion.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Please excuse my ignorance here but I don’t know exactly how to phrase my question, so I will simply ask it as such;

How can objective morality exist if ourselves and the physical world came into being through mere, unguided chance?

In other words, if God does not exist, then can there be such a thing as objective morality? If so, please explain how.

Thank you.

Tim

Why should there be such a thing?

 

[John21652]

If I’m not mistaken, I believe Utilitarianism as proposed by John Stuart Mill to be a code of ethics that is considered objective.
Of course, while it doesn’t inherently contradict the idea of there being a God, it does clash with the more traditional objective morality that is Natural Law.

I believe you need to go and do a whole lot more reading on this subject. Utilitarianism rests on moral relativity and the subjectivity of what constitutes ‘happiness’. It is an utterly discredited philosophical approach to morality and ethics.

 

[John21652]

Why should there be such a thing?

There just is.

 

[honestquestions]

How can objective morality exist if ourselves and the physical world came into being through mere, unguided chance?

What information do you have that says the physical world came into being by mere unguided chance?

Evolution deals with life once it’s already here, and is not guided by chance.
Before evolution is abiogenesis. If we do not fully yet understand about the origin of life, I’ll leave it at that and not call it unguided chance. So your premise is flawed, and therefore your question is irrelevant. Nevertheless, I understand where you are going with your question, but I’ve answered pages worth already on here. I guess we should all search a little more with what’s already been done rather than putting more time into restating everything.

 

[abucs]

I think for a Christian, God is morality in that the ultimate basis of reality is God who is a being of morality by His nature.

I think apart from God morality is a humanly created concept open to change. And if humans are simply pieces of atoms undergoing evolutionary changes then morality and indeed reason, love and existence itself is therefore an illusion so that there can be no morality, reason, love or existence without God.

That’s not to say atheists can’t love, or that they can’t exist, but that the love and existence is ultimately only an illusion if God does not exist.

 

[wanstronian]

God plants in us a sense of right and wrong, and also plants in us a conscience to decide between the two.

If this is true, why does he not follow the same criteria for right and wrong? I think we’d all agree that genocide, infanticide, rape and slavery are wrong, and if you’re correct, it’s God that’s given us that morality.

So why does he not follow it himself?

Catholics and atheists are given the same equipment with which to make moral judgments.

That’s true - an intrinsic morality that has emerged from our evolution into social animals.

The difference is that the atheist denies the source of morality comes from on high.

No - the difference is that religious people cherry pick the bits from their religious books that correlate with their intrinsic human morality, and claim that the entirety of human morality is a result of a sacred bequest from their god - despite the evident inconsistencies of such a dogma.

As a consequence, very often the atheist point of view, anchored in nature but defiant of nature’s God, can be swayed away from its rightful course by a weak or seduced will that has managed to substitute an evil course of action for a good one. I hasten to add that this can happen to the Catholic as well, but that the Catholic at least has recourse to a method of correcting and atoning for his corruption that the atheist has denied exists.

In fact, the complete opposite is true. Religion allows the perpetrator of evil actions to justify such actions by recourse to their religious beliefs. Heard of the Lafferty brothers?

Moreover, because religious people are forced to defend the horrors perpetrated by their God, they have to do one of two things:

1. Cherry-pick the bits of (in this case) the bible that support their contention that God is good, and ignore the bits that demonstrate that he’s bad. This inevitably leads to the problem that it is impossible to determine with any reliability or objectivity whether any of the bible is actually reliable, and results in the undeniable (yet still, predictably, denied) fact that morality is a humanistic, rather than divine, phenomenon.
2. Defend every part of the bible, such as the Catholic idol, William Lane Craig, has recently done, and claim, arbitrarily, that if God did it, it’s okay. Why? Well, it just is. Bye bye, moral compass.

Atheists, on the other hand, are not bound by such dogmatic texts - we’re free to admit and correct our mistakes. And it not us who are claiming that in certain cases, infanticide et al is acceptable.

Indeed, prayer is useless for the atheist

And, as has been demonstrated, useless for the theist also, except in the context of false comfort

and therefore he must rely entirely on the power of reason and will to overcome his own evil actions or the evil actions of others.

Bang on - that’s the best method by which to identify and correct such actions.

As to promoting good action among others, I don’t see the atheist doing much of that since atheism is rooted in the individualist approach to truth. Every man is entitled to craft his own morality with no interference from religion or the state.

If theists could get just one stupid, ridiculous, baseless, utterly wrong fallacy out of their narrow-minded, bigoted heads, I think I’d like it to be this one. It’s a pathetic argument that has been demolished time and time again. Almost as pathetic as the argument that having some moral guidelines written in a book (from which the theist then cherry picks according to their own subjective desires) somehow makes them objective and divine and right.

 

[tonyrey]

1. A Godless universe is amoral.
2. If the universe is amoral morality is a human invention.
3. If morality is a human invention objective morality is an illusion.:hey_bud:

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I believe you need to go and do a whole lot more reading on this subject. Utilitarianism rests on moral relativity and the subjectivity of what constitutes ‘happiness’. It is an utterly discredited philosophical approach to morality and ethics.

I’m going to assume that your disproof of utilitarianism follows the same line of reasoning as your proof of the existence of objective morality:

There just is.

 

[wanstronian]

1. A Godless universe is amoral.

Do you mean that the universe as an entity is amoral? I would agree with that; as the universe is not a sentient being, morality is a redundant consideration. It’s like saying a [Godless/insert adjective of your choice] universe is asexual. The sex of the universe is a non-issue.

If you mean that morality is impossible without God, then I’d have to ask how you know this.

1. If the universe is amoral morality is a human invention.

That’s like saying that humans are a human invention. Morality is an intrinsic part of humanity - in fact, an intrinsic part of any social species, to a greater or lesser extent. This has been amply demonstrated, to the point where if you want to deny it, you’re going to have to provide a convincing rationale.

1. If morality is a human invention objective morality is an illusion.:hey_bud:

That’s true, but unfortunately your implied conclusion is built upon at least one false premise and possibly two, depending on what your first statement actually meant.

 

[tonyrey]

1. A Godless universe is amoral.

I mean that none of the universe’s attributes provides a rational basis for morality.

1. If the universe is amoral morality is a human invention.

That’s like saying that humans are a human invention.

Human beings are obviously not a human invention but much of their activity results in inventions.

Morality is an intrinsic part of humanity - in fact, an intrinsic part of any social species, to a greater or lesser extent. This has been amply demonstrated, to the point where if you want to deny it, you’re going to have to provide a convincing rationale.

At this stage we need to define morality - which is concerned with what we ought to do. David Hume made the point that we cannot deduce “ought” from “is”. Consequently if we are products of an amoral universe there is no rational basis for morality.

The fact that morality is an intrinsic part of humanity does not entail correspondence to fact. In other words, beliefs alone have no objective significance - even if they are universal.

1. If morality is a human invention objective morality is an illusion.

That’s true, but unfortunately your implied conclusion is built upon at least one false premise and possibly two, depending on what your first statement actually meant.

Their falsity remains to be established…

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

No, if there’s nothing “bigger” than humans that determines human morality, then morality is relative-to human opinion.

No. It depends on how you define objective morality. We could, for example, say that something is objectively moral iff it minimizes suffering. Such a definition would allow us to objectively measure the morality of any action. There would be no subjectivity. For any decision, we could gauge the suffering of the relevant people and see if the decision increased or decreased their level of suffering.

“But!” you will object, “that definition is arbitrary!” But you will notice that it doesn’t matter. Objective just means that morality is not subject to personal interpretation. The Celsius temperature scale is arbitrary and objective, but it works just fine for our purposes.

“But the definition is up to personal interpretation!” Is that any different from the current situation? No, because your version of objective morality requires the existence of God, it requires a statement of faith. A statement of faith is a subjective interpretation of evidence. Therefore, your definition of morality is also “personally interpreted.”