The Existence of Objective Morality

[Charlemagne_II]

hansen
**
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. **

There are, for example, foods that are good for us and foods that are not good for us. If you crave candy bars and potato chips by the bag load, you have a subjective preference for a food that tastes good to you, but also an objective preference for a food that is considerably less nutritious than fish, chicken, vegetables, and fruit.

When the atheist says there is no objective evidence of morally right and wrong actions, he is arguing on a par with those who say there is no objective evidence for the poor nutrition values of candy bars and potato chips compared to fish, chicken, fruit, and vegetables.

The comparative behavior of Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa should put an end to such nonsense.

 

[atheistgirl]

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.

I actually agree with much of what you say, but not for the reasons you may think. Jehova Witnesses let their members die rather than take a blood transfusion, and they claim to have the fullness of truth. Ignorance of science, biology, the cosmos, is certainly harmful to humankind. But sadly it is religions that has done the most harm in my opinion in keeping people ignorant or at least now allowing them to benefit from the fullness of scientific and medical discovery and processes.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

The comparative behavior of Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa should put an end to such nonsense.

Read Hitchens book on her - Hell’s Angel … for an eye opening account of her behaviour and read the witness accounts of those that volunteered with her in India

Sarah x

 

[davidv]

I actually agree with much of what you say, but not for the reasons you may think. Jehova Witnesses let their members die rather than take a blood transfusion, and they claim to have the fullness of truth. Ignorance of science, biology, the cosmos, is certainly harmful to humankind. But sadly it is religions that has done the most harm in my opinion in keeping people ignorant or at least now allowing them to benefit from the fullness of scientific and medical discovery and processes.

Seems me that you last sentence paints with too broad a brush. It certainly cannot apply to Catholism. One read of “On Faith and Reason” should confirm this.

 

[Ender]

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

What makes like precious, especially all life, and if all life is precious what would make human life more precious than any other form of life? I can accept this claim as a statement of faith but how would you demonstrate it as a statement of fact?

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 repent 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.

Another way to look at this is that all these people are searching for the same thing, but the fact that they are not all looking in the right places does not mean that the right place does not exist, and while it is surely true that our faith - or lack of it - is influenced by our upbringing it is also true that we are not limited to what we were taught as children. Almost everyone goes through a period of searching for the truth of faith that for some may last decades.

Ender

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

Read Hitchens book on her - Hell’s Angel … for an eye opening account of her behaviour and read the witness accounts of those that volunteered with her in India.

Ah yes, you would consider Hitchens, who regards himself as an authority on practically everything, to be an authority on Mother Teresa. He doesn’t even know that Thomas Jefferson repudiated atheism in a letter to John Adams (see his book on Thomas Jefferson).

 

[atheistgirl]

Seems me that you last sentence paints with too broad a brush. It certainly cannot apply to Catholism. One read of “On Faith and Reason” should confirm this.

That looks an interesting read - I’ll read it later. Thank you.

I did make a rather sweeping statement I agree, but I dont think any church or faith is immune or whiter than white. Catholicism has a rather bleak history of corruption, crusades, silence on slavery for generations, anti-jewish bigotry to the point of even kidnapping jewish children and bringing them up as catholics, sexual scandal, and so forth … and it’s not alone among the faiths in this.

I dont want to say more as I dont want to offend catholic readers on their own forum, but I think you can read between the lines if I say I dont agree with much of all churches stances on certain medical/scientific practices.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

atheistgirl

Read Hitchens book on her - Hell’s Angel … for an eye opening account of her behaviour and read the witness accounts of those that volunteered with her in India.

Ah yes, you would consider Hitchens, who regards himself as an authority on practically everything, to be an authority on Mother Teresa. He doesn’t even know that Thomas Jefferson repudiated atheism in a letter to John Adams (see his book on Thomas Jefferson).

I dont consider him an authority on anything. But the facts of his book on her have not been refuted, and Ive seen the interviews with her replacement where she said the money was ‘‘God’s money’’ so she didnt feel obliged to reveal accounts, or discuss how the money, given to the poor for the alleviation of their direct suffering, was being spent on building convents for her nuns.

Hitchen’s does a fine job in his biography of Jefferson in highlighting the inconsistencies and contradictions of the man.

Sarah x

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

**But the facts of his book on her have not been refuted, and Ive seen the interviews with her replacement where she said the money was ‘‘God’s money’’ so she didnt feel obliged to reveal accounts, or discuss how the money, given to the poor for the alleviation of their direct suffering, was being spent on building convents for her nuns. **

It was not given to the poor. It was given for the poor. But you and Hitchens would begrudge the nuns a place to live while they are sacrificing their lives to feed and attend the poor and the dying?

How petty can you get? It’s not like she was building a luxurious high-rise for the likes of Donald Trump.

All attempts to discredit her work by anti-Catholic individuals have been defeated by the dozens of awards that testify to the true merit of all the good that she had done not only in India but all around the world. Her “Franciscan” nobility was finally recognized in 1979 when she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize “for work undertaken in the struggle to overcome poverty and distress, which also constitute a threat to peace.” Late in life and after her death she was consistently voted in American polls “most admired person in the world.”
After suffering several heart attacks, a bout of pneumonia, a broken collar bone, and finally malaria, Mother Teresa gave up her spirit on September 5, 1997. Compassionate as she was to others, we may suppose that at the hour of her death the Prayer of Saint Francis, which she had prayed every morning with all her Sisters, must have brought comfort to her in her own great hour of need. Starting with a dozen workers, Teresa left behind 4,000 Sisters, 300 Brothers, and more than 100,000 lay volunteers spread among 610 missions in 123 nations. The government of India sponsored a state funeral. Immediately the Vatican acknowledged her as a candidate for canonization and she has already been beatified, earning the title Blessed Mother Teresa. Her Feast Day is September 5.

But of course atheists like you and Christopher Hitchens know she is unworthy of our praise.

 

[fhansen]

I actually agree with much of what you say, but not for the reasons you may think. Jehova Witnesses let their members die rather than take a blood transfusion, and they claim to have the fullness of truth. Ignorance of science, biology, the cosmos, is certainly harmful to humankind. But sadly it is religions that has done the most harm in my opinion in keeping people ignorant or at least now allowing them to benefit from the fullness of scientific and medical discovery and processes.

Sarah x

Yes, well I would certainly agree about the JWs.

 

[atheistgirl]

But you and Hitchens would begrudge the nuns a place to live while they are sacrificing their lives to feed and attend the poor and the dying?..

How petty can you get? …But of course atheists like you and Christopher Hitchens know she is unworthy of our praise.

Thanks for the unnecessary personalising of the post.

Sarah x

 

[fhansen]

I dont consider him an authority on anything. But the facts of his book on her have not been refuted, and Ive seen the interviews with her replacement where she said the money was ‘‘God’s money’’ so she didnt feel obliged to reveal accounts, or discuss how the money, given to the poor for the alleviation of their direct suffering, was being spent on building convents for her nuns.

Hitchen’s does a fine job in his biography of Jefferson in highlighting the inconsistencies and contradictions of the man.

Sarah x

I read Hitchens book. Poor guy had to try sooo hard to find something, anything- I think John Calvin would’ve admitted Hitchens was grasping at straws.

 

[atheistgirl]

Yes, well I would certainly agree about the JWs.

But can you see that so someone on the outside looking in - there is little between all faiths and beliefs - they all very much look the same, in one way or another? Every one will tell you they have the whole truth, every one will tell you the others are corrupted, every one will tell you the pretty much believe in the same God. … it’s baffling to someone like me.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

I read Hitchens book. Poor guy had to try sooo hard to find something, anything- I think John Calvin would’ve admitted Hitchens was grasping at straws.

Erm, I dont think that’s the case. He didnt have to look far or try hard at all. But we will each see it from our own perspective. The woman is a heroine to some, so they clearly wont easily accept information at challenges long held views of her.

Sarah x

 

[Ender]

The woman is a heroine to some, so they clearly wont easily accept information at challenges long held views of her.

I would ask what you consider to be Hitchen’s most damaging assertion about Mother Theresa, but this thread is about the existence of objective morality. Without which, by the way, there would be basis on which any of her actions could be either praised or condemned other than on their outcome - which is not exactly a moral concern.

Ender

 

[fhansen]

But we will each see it from our own perspective.

This I agree with.

The woman is a heroine to some, so** they clearly wont easily accept information at challenges long held views of her**.

This I don’t agree with. I was genuinely expecting to find much more substantial allegations in the book-and was surprised to see how shallow it was. I think someone would be looking for an excuse to dislike MT in order to find much there against her.

 

[fhansen]

But can you see that so someone on the outside looking in - there is little between all faiths and beliefs - they all very much look the same, in one way or another? Every one will tell you they have the whole truth, every one will tell you the others are corrupted, every one will tell you the pretty much believe in the same God. … it’s baffling to someone like me.

Sarah x

The truth about human nature is that we all think we’re right and seem to prefer things that way, meaning morality is relative until we outgrow this “need” or preference. Meanwhile, we can believe all kinds of things, with or without religion, and rationalize any behavior we deem right-people do it all the time-all moral evil results from we fools doing something wrong because we’re convinced it’s right. I believe in Catholicism because, for one thing, it’s explained this particular truth to me, making a great deal of sense out of the whys and wherefores of the evil I observe and occasionally am part of.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

**I did make a rather sweeping statement I agree, but I dont think any church or faith is immune or whiter than white. Catholicism has a rather bleak history of corruption, crusades, silence on slavery for generations, anti-jewish bigotry to the point of even kidnapping jewish children and bringing them up as catholics, sexual scandal, and so forth … and it’s not alone among the faiths in this. **

Now who is personalizing. I’m not guilty of any of the things you mention above. Neither are millions of other Catholics who have lived down through history. You are doing the Bertrand Russell thing: looking for all the evil Catholics have done and never admitting to the great good they have done.

Well, that plays the other way too. Look at all the atheist regimes that have governed the world and tell me how much good they did for their people. Stalin? Mao? Hitler, who hated the Church and persecuted it while pretending to be a Christian.

I ask you again to back off your personal slur against Mother Teresa. I made her the opposite of Hitler in the earlier post and you have tried to make her out to be no saint.

Is that the best you can do by way of rebuttal to my charge that there is an objective difference between the morality of an Adolf Hitler and the morality of a Mother Teresa?

Pathetic.

 

[tonyrey]

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

I certainly agree that none of the universe’s attributes provides a rational basis for maths, logic & philosophy because they provide no rational explanation of rationality!

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

The old riposte is that wetness is still a physical phenomenon.

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?

The fact that morality is based on the value of life which is more consistent with its creation by God than by purposeless processes. I use invention in the sense of convention, i.e. a human artifice for survival and co-existence.

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.

That view of morality does not account for individual morality - which often transcends social considerations - and reduces it to expediency.

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?

The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, the absolute obligation to do what we are convinced is right and to choose the lesser of two or more evils.

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?

Objective morality is based on the immense value of existence and in particular of personal existence.

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 believe the view that morality is rooted in the nature of the Creator is more reasonable than being due to purposeless processes.

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.

Please refer to my previous explanations.

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.

I believe reason and morality are not unique to humans because we are not the only rational, moral beings!

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

It can be perceived according to the criteria I have mentioned - which amount to living in harmony and respecting everyone’s right to choose what to believe and how to live, provided their choices do not harm others.

 

[Joan1969]

Good Afternoon, Sarah,

because it’s life, and all life is precious. Most especially because it’s human life. [response to question as to why human life should be valued]

This has no real foundation, except your personal preferences.

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…

The Trinitarian belief is three Persons in One God. Critical distinction.

You want to lump all believing theists, or at least Christians, together and hold them all accountable for disagreements among each other. The Catholic Creed is consistent and easily available to anyone interested.

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.

It’s true that people are profoundly influenced by the culture they are born into. But truth remains the same, even as whole cultures believe or do what is wrong. Otherwise, you are into total relativism, which seems to be different from the position you are taking.

… 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…

No, but any such study would be quite unlikely to find any devout people. There are plenty of people who claim a given religion, but in reality their belief and practice is more dominated by individualistic picking and choosing than it is by real faithfulness. They are very much under the influence of the secular world, and their behavior is more a reflection on secularism (and ultimately atheism) than it is on whatever creed they claim to have.

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.

You are again speaking for yourself. The Communist party is the perfect example of a very strong and dominating group that is also atheistic. The majority of atheists in history have been, I dare say, Communists or radical Socialists of one stripe or another.

I get the impression your atheism is based on impressions and personal mental habits. Maybe time to consider a change?

God Bless,
Joan