The Existence of Objective Morality

[GloriousOrder]

The widespread nature and verity of the Cardinal Virtues has always been a bulwark in the defense of objective morality.

In every culture human beings have built, four virtues are prominently taught. Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance have been integral to every single society. History has shown that these four things are deeply ingrained in us: 1. common sense in appraising a situation, 2. acknowledging what is right in the situation, 3. having the courage to carry it out, and 4. doing it moderately without excess or defect (too much or too little) in order to close the situation.

Many cultures may have had differing ideas of just what pertains to Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance, but all human beings have this innate desire to participate in the four. An Aztec priest may have considered it strict justice (obligatory, required) to render one human heart to the gods every day, whereas a Spanish priest may have considered it strict justice specifically to* avoid* such an event. The common, uniting factor is that both men had a sense of the cardinal virtue that is Justice, not that their sense of Justice was united. The absolute, objective morality rests in the sense of Justice, just as it rests in the sense of Courage, of Moderation, and of Good Sense.

Can anyone point to a society in history whose philosophers, thinkers, and average people advocated Imprudence, Injustice, Cowardice, and Stupidity? These four things are always at odds with our human sense of the cardinal virtues. Even at the worst times in society, when all people seemed to be imprudent, unjust, cowardly, and stupid, the fact was lamented and not praised. No one has ever said it is ideal for us to be opposite the four cardinal virtues; indeed, everyone we can find praises these four. It’s not as if the Greek, Chinese, Ancient Indian, Gothic, and Native American cultures had exactly the same understandings of the virtues, but an urge to follow all four - according to the culture - was present.

From the four cardinal virtues, we can easily see a common human chain pulling every person and society toward universals. We would have no sense of Justice (however it is perceived and carried out) if nothing were just, for we would have no ultimate scale by which to measure what is just. There must be one particular act that is just in any given situation, and an opposing act which is unjust. Our very basic human conscience always tells us this.

 

[fhansen]

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.”

The objection would be to say that, one way or the other, only* if* there is a God or some such authority external to humankind, can morality be objective. Any other morality would be subject to personal human opinion. It all hinges on faith in God, and whether or not such faith, itself, is strictly subjective, having no basis in reality.

 

[atheistgirl]

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.

I would agree with this. But it seems to me to be every bit as objective or subjective as relying on instructions and interpretation from a holy book.
The fact isn’t lost on athesits that there is absolutely no agreement amongst those of faith as to even the basics - Heaven/Hell, The Virgin Mother of God, Sin, How to get forgiveness, The last supper, The Trinity, and so forth … every sect has the ‘‘truth’’ which by definition is objective, yet it’s all different

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.

Every religion, or variation within a faith, has crafted their own objective morality, their own interpretation of the ultimate truth, their own guidelines to live by.

And yet, in reality and observably, they’re not terribly different in general to those someone of no faith lives by - love one another, do good not harm, minimize suffering, help the poor, value and treasure all live including the unborn, behave reasonably and ethically, realize we are custodians of the earth, not it’s owner… the list goes on.

Sarah x

 

[wanstronian]

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

Okay - so one can’t point to a single source and say, “That’s where morality comes from.” I agree, and the same applies for maths, logic, philosophy, pain, hunger, and so on.

And, to use the old analogy, one can’t point towards hydrogen and oxygen atoms and identify the existence of wetness

Your original statement was, “A Godless universe is an amoral universe.” Why use “Godless” as the adjective? If you’re implying that morality can only have come from God - what’s your rationale for this?

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

True - but I wouldn’t call morality an invention. Morality has emerged as part of our evolution into a social species. To call it a human invention would be like saying that opposable thumbs are a human “invention.”

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.

But there is - our role as a social species. The rational basis is that a shared morality allows us to co-exist - and therefore flourish - as a species. The same way that the evolution of opposable thumbs allows us the facility to make and use tools - and therefore flourish as a species.

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.

True enough. Depending on your definition of “objective”, then even if everybody in the world believes the same thing, that doesn’t make it a fact. In this context, there is no objective morality. Nor indeed, is there any clue about what an objective morality would look like. Human morality changes with time, location, socio-economic climate, religious affiliation and a whole raft of other parameters - this is easily demonstrated. So what would an “objective” - in the context of absolute and immutable - morality look like?

Is it your contention that an objective morality DOES exist? If so, what does it look like, where does it come from, and where is it documented? And how do you know it’s objective?

Their falsity remains to be established…

Well, sort of. In your first statement, if you are effectively stating that morality comes from God, you need to provide some proof that this is true. Otherwise, although we can’t absolutely establish the falsity of the statement, there’s no reason or obligation to accept it as the truth, nor any calculable probability of it being so. So it can safely be dismissed from consideration.

I think your whole second statement is incoherent, although it may just be the way you phrased it. Morality isn’t an “invention,” it’s an intrinsic part of our humanity.

As it happens, I agree with your final statement, “If morality is a human invention objective morality is an illusion,” as a stand-alone comment. But I don’t believe there’s any question of morality being a human invention - that fails to understand what morality actually is. Morality is no more a human invention than reason is. Apart from anything else, these things are not unique to humans.

So, as no standard of “objective morality” exists, then I don’t see how it can be perceived, either as illusion or in actuality.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

For me, one of the core differences between my actions, and the actions of those with a faith, is I do what I do, because it is the right thing to do -

With out objective moral truth, there is no such thing as the right thing to do. Such a concept is objectively meaningless, and insofar as we use that concept as a subjective social aid specifically for the maximization of social and personal pleasure, its function is purely relative to what makes the individual happy and the risks or sacrifices that individual is prepared to make in the social. In other-words you do it not because it is truly and objectively “good”, but because it makes you feel a certain way to do actions which support your choice to stay alive and commit to social relations you deem important.

I don’t do it for any future reward

That’s impossible and meaningless. We all act for a reason, and that is firstly to do with our own personal fulfillment. We begin with self and desire. Otherwise you would not act at all. The basis of all human action is personal desire and instinct. We all act for an end, and as i said that begins with personal fulfillment. You only learn to recognize the value of others because you have learned the subjective value of yourself (the fact that you have a “self” and your ability to bring pleasure to it), and you support that which benefits the social and existential state of human beings only in relation to that fact. You express empathy because you have been socially conditioned in to thinking that it will make “you” a better person. You would not usually show empathy to a stone, and that is because you have not been conditioned to think that there is any “moral glory” in showing empathy for a stone. Unless you see that having empathy toward a stone will benefit your moral sense of worth, you are not going to have empathy for it; since it would feel unreasonable and pointless to have empathy for something that “you” cannot relate to in some way. You relate to people firstly because “you” are a person and thus it “feels good” to do so.

Without God, the fulfillment of an end to which a things nature is in act is the only reason a being acts. If you think for a moment that anything you do ought to be valued or perceived as being a “greater virtue” that others fail to have but ought to have, then you are deluding yourself.

You are no better than anyone else. Objectively speaking none of us are morally better than Hitler or any other tyrant, since morality is not real. The word tyrant is just a label which qualitatively amounts to nothing more than me saying i don’t like the taste of mar-mite or cow poo. It is to say that this thing here is undesirable; but it is not to say that this thing is “wrong” in the true sense of the word. Cow poo is not morally wrong because it doesn’t taste nice, and a comet is not evil because it crashes into a village full of children; and neither is any action or thing, regardless of whether it is conscious or not. There is no such thing as disorder or immorality or abomination or evil. Only “actions”, “things”, and “desires”, and the things that desire, can be considered as real; and it is irrational to apply anything more to reality which transcends those facts, unless we are willing to believe in a transcendent eternal moral law for which we as personal beings exist and have our purpose. Hitler simply had the guts to do what he desired with the little time that he had. A nihilist consciously rejects the subjective delusion of morality and the human fear of death and accepts death as an inevitability; thus the length of life becomes irrelevant. Only maximizing the subjective feeling of pleasure is relevant. Moral codes only matters to those who are too scared to die or take risks with their lives in the pursuit of pleasure.

The attainment of absolute subjective pleasure is the only natural end for those who do not want to die; and any moral compromise in the pursuit of that goal is grounded in the fear of death and the fear of being excluded from all the pleasures and security of our social needs.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The objection would be to say that, one way or the other, only* if* there is a God or some such authority external to humankind, can morality be objective. Any other morality would be subject to personal human opinion. It all hinges on faith in God, and whether or not such faith, itself, is strictly subjective, having no basis in reality.

No. I explained one possible objective method of measuring morality which does not involve God. It is possible to quantify suffering objectively, via brain scans for example.

How do you objectively measure morality by christian standards? What test do you apply?

 

[Joan1969]

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

Hi Sarah,

You are promoting in your two posts that morality can be held and followed by anyone. Technically that’s true, but you are disregarding that atheism does not give any ultimate foundation for any morality, except maybe a utilitarian one like I described in my last post. Why does the human person have inherent worth?

You’ve appealed to the common moral sense of all atheists, but the reality is that atheists can belive what they want, from Maoism to earth worship. Don’t confuse modern American atheists with atheists in general, across history and the globe. The majority have no problem with abortion, and sexual ethics are generally highly permissive among atheists (at least nowadays).

The existence of huge numbers of secularized Chrisitans does not really change the witness given by those who do embrace and practice a moral code that follows from their faith. The difference between them and worldly people of any stripe is pronounced, especially with regards to family living and reverence for life. The pro-life movement, for instance, has practically no atheists, but is pretty much dominated by Christians. I don’t think that’s just an anomoly of our culture; it is the normal consequence of making the honest effort to follow God rather than trying to “figure it out for oneself”.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[fhansen]

No. I explained one possible objective method of measuring morality which does not involve God. It is possible to quantify suffering objectively, via brain scans for example.

How do you objectively measure morality by christian standards? What test do you apply?

No, because like you said in your post, “It depends on how you define objective morality.” How/why does one decide that it’s moral to minimize suffering? If I’m a sadist, I may decide it’s moral to maximize suffering. If it depends on my doing the defining, how can the morality be said to be objective?

 

[atheistgirl]

That’s impossible and meaningless.

I didnt express that very well - I should have more properly said to please some spiritual being or to get some future reward in heaven, neither of which, for me, exist.

If you think for a moment that anything you do ought to be valued or perceived as being a “greater virtue” that others fail to have but ought to have, then you are deluding yourself.

I dont think Im better or worse than most people. I would also say Im not the deluded one.

You are no better than anyone else.

I highlighted the differences in the motivations behind my actions and those of someone of faith. I never suggested or implied I was in any way better than anyone else. There IS a difference in our motivations - that’s all I was alluding to,

Objectively speaking none of us are morally better than** Hitler **or any other tyrant, since morality is not real.

I refer to Godwin’s Law and end the discussion with you

Sarah x

 

[Ender]

It depends on how you define objective morality.

If objective morality exists then, like the laws of physics, it is immune to our opinions of what it should be; it awaits discovery, not definition.

wanstronian:

Morality is an intrinsic part of humanity - in fact, an intrinsic part of any social species, to a greater or lesser extent.

If we define morality as those behaviors which are beneficial to the functioning of a society then we reduce it to utilitarianism. If that’s all we mean then we could accept that bees can behave morally, but I really doubt that much of a case can be made that any species other than man acts morally because moral acts require reason, not instinct.

It is essential to fault that it be voluntary. (Aquinas)

Ender

 

[Joel_PF]

Let’s pretend for a second that God doesn’t exist. Let’s also ignore the question of how the universe came into being and how life appeared and finally how man appeared.

The fact is that all men desire happiness. Every time you act, you manifest that you have values, that is, that there are things you seek, that you would like to do or have. If we didn’t have values, if we didn’t want anything, we wouldn’t act. Acting means choosing, preferring A over B.

Also, all humans have a human nature. That means that some things and actions lead to a true happiness, while others drive us away from it. Having a loving family, working with something that you like and producing something great, learning and studying things that interest you deeply; these are all good things, as they bring us closer to that full human happiness that we all desire. Now, wasting one’s life on drugs, cultivating hatred and resentment towards others, spending years in front of a TV, these actions lead one away from happiness.

Ethics is the science that points the way to true happiness.

Christianity accepts that, but it points to something new: “Look; this happiness you seek is good, but it is still lacking in something essential: communion with God, the origin of all other values and next to which all of them appear as nothing.”

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

No, because like you said in your post, “It depends on how you define objective morality.” How/why does one decide that it’s moral to minimize suffering? If I’m a sadist, I may decide it’s moral to maximize suffering. If it depends on my doing the defining, how can the morality be said to be objective?

I pointed out that the choice of which definition to use is subjective, but that doesn’t matter much. To use an analogy, Rankine and Kelvin are both objective measures of temperature, but which you prefer is subjective.

 

[atheistgirl]

Why does the human person have inherent worth?

Hi Joan,

because it’s life, and all life is precious. Most especially because it’s human life.

You’ve appealed to the common moral sense of all atheists, but the reality is that atheists can belive what they want,

But from where I stand, so do those of faith. One will tell me there is 3 gods in one person, another will tell me there’s only one. Yet another will tell me I must repend and confess my sins, and another will tell me Christ died for me and Im already forgiven. One will tell me there is heaven and hell, and another tell me there is no such place as hell, only heaven, and a new paradise on earth yet to come. All of these beliefs are held fervently and genuinely - yet they can not all be right. I see this as people of faith believing what they want, based on their interpretation of books and literature, or their churches interpretations, all fervently believing, yet none agreeing. It get’s even more confused when other non christian faiths are considered. A persons faith it seems to me is more or less a complete accident of where one is born in the world and the parents and community they are born to.

The majority have no problem with abortion, and sexual ethics are generally highly permissive among atheists (at least nowadays).

But I think this is true of people of faith. Some churches recognise that while they do not condone contraception or abortion, the vast majority of their faithful do indeed contracept and abort. I dont know of any studies in this, but I’ll bet most of those who have abortions, if asked their faith, would not say none, or atheist…

The pro-life movement, for instance, has practically no atheists, but is pretty much dominated by Christians.

This may be simply because atheists by and large dont feel the need to belong to a particular group or other… I’m not a group person, but I am pro life, pro alleviation of suffering and so forth - in that regard I would support humanist groups in the field rather than a religious group doing the same work.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

But I think this is true of people of faith. Some churches recognise that while they do not condone contraception or abortion, the vast majority of their faithful do indeed contracept and abort. I dont know of any studies in this, but I’ll bet most of those who have abortions, if asked their faith, would not say none, or atheist…

guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf
Non-religious are only slightly over-represented. The have about 17% of all abortions but comprise roughly 16% of the population.

Catholics are 23% of the population and have 26% of all abortions. Protestants have about half of all abortions but are 51% of the population.

 

[atheistgirl]

guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf
Non-religious are only slightly over-represented. The have about 17% of all abortions but comprise roughly 16% of the population.

Catholics are 23% of the population and have 26% of all abortions. Protestants have about half of all abortions but are 51% of the population.

Very interesting. Thank you.

What about the figures for contraception within faiths that oppose it? I’ve heard anecdotaly the figures are very high?

Sarah x

 

[fhansen]

But I think this is true of people of faith. Some churches recognise that while they do not condone contraception or abortion, the vast majority of their faithful do indeed contracept and abort. I dont know of any studies in this, but I’ll bet most of those who have abortions, if asked their faith, would not say none, or atheist…

Yes, churches teach that people struggle with objective morality-and that’s why sin even exists. This doesn’t mean the morality is wrong.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanstronian

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.

Quite a few ad hominems there, wouldn’t you say? I was going to answer your post until I read the above sentence. Now I’m going to ignore all your posts.

 

[atheistgirl]

Yes, churches teach that people struggle with objective morality-and that’s why sin even exists. This doesn’t mean the morality is wrong.

But the point I was making was this ‘‘objective’’ morality is actually relative and subjective, because it all depends on what church or faith you belong to.

Sarah x

 

[fhansen]

But the point I was making was this ‘‘objective’’ morality is actually relative and subjective, because it all depends on what church or faith you belong to.

Sarah x

True, but that doesn’t serve to demonstrate that any one religion can’t happen to be right. Or that there may be truth in all, but only one with the “fullness” of it. The idea behind religion is that truth exists, but that ignorance exists as well-and is harmful to humankind-and that we can navigate towards greater light if we look for it.

 

[fhansen]

I pointed out that the choice of which definition to use is subjective, but that doesn’t matter much. To use an analogy, Rankine and Kelvin are both objective measures of temperature, but which you prefer is subjective.

Well, correct me if I’m wrong-I’m sure you will -but I think they’re apples and oranges. We agree that heat exists. But as this thread attests, people don’t necessarily agree that objective morality even exists, let alone define what it consists of, let alone quantify or measure it.