The Existence of Objective Morality

[shoe]

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.

I think most belief systems, if not all, seem to have some sort of exclusive claim to the truth, which by itself does not necessarily say anything about the validity or truth of their claim. Hinduism, for example, believes in two very uncompromising doctrines - the belief in reincarnation and the Law of Karma. And Buddhism, which came from Hinduism, discarded two doctrines of Hinduism - its caste system and the authority of the Vedas. Islam, which also has an exclusive claim to God, has definite beliefs of rightness. And atheists, some out of kindness and some out of badness, claim that atheism is the only true worldview - atheist Richard Dawkins said, “The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth.” And Jesus was making a very exclusive statement when he said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” which I personally believe. But I am not saying here that one belief system should be considered correct and all the rest incorrect; but I am saying that each belief system claims to “have the whole truth.” I believe that truth by its very nature is exclusive in that everything in the world cannot be either true or false. If every worldview were true, then nothing in the world can be false; but on the other hand, if every worldview were false, then nothing in the world can be true. Two statements that contradict each other cannot both be true.

 

[Ender]

Okay - so one can’t point to a single source and say, “That’s where morality comes from.” I agree…

The question is whether objective morality - that is, a morality independent of individual opinion - exists. From your statements it appears that you believe morality exists but that it is subjective only and doesn’t describe how man actually ought to act but is really nothing more than than a collection of social conventions that - legitimately - change with the times.

If you’re implying that morality can only have come from God - what’s your rationale for this?

What other source could there possibly be? You believe neither in God nor objective morality but surely if God existed then he would (or at least could) be the source. Why would you object to this statement?

True - but I wouldn’t call morality an invention. Morality has emerged as part of our evolution into a social species.

As I understand your position you would call morality not invention but convention.

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.

It is ironic that someone could believe his morality obliges him to act a certain way even while acknowledging that what he claims to believe is not based on anything more real than current conventions that as you yourself pointed out change with the times. Why would I hold myself to a standardless standard?

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.

If you believe morality exists among non-human species we have very different opinions of what morality is.

Ender

 

[davidv]

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

Why do you single out religious organizations? Secular organizations, particularly governments, have an equal or even greater history of abuses.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

shoe
**
Two statements that contradict each other cannot both be true. **

Indeed, they might both be false. But even if both are false, we can only say that because we believe that some other statement contrary to those two statements must be true.

You cannot get around the existence of objective truth.

Even the statement “There is no objective truth” is supposed to be an objectively true statement.

So when you say there is no objective morality, it’s only because you say there can be no objective truth, which is clearly false. Every moral act must be truly right or truly wrong. No moral act can be neither right nor wrong.

Yes, people can mistake a moral act for an immoral act, or an immoral act for a moral act. That would make the judgment subjective. But when the error of perception is corrected, or the error of will is re-directed, one may be converted to the belief that one has erred by being subjectively moral when one should have been objectively moral.

Hitler persuaded himself that his moral outlook was objectively right.

Mother Teresa persuaded herself that her moral outlook was objectively right.

Who was objectively right?

 

[Timothysis]

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

In the Ben Stein movie Expelled there is a group of scientists who maintain that the physical world and everything in/on it came into existence by an unintelligent/unguided chance. This is their position, not mine. My question arises from their stance.

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.

This same group was of the opinion that life began by some physical event unrelated to anything that could be construed as “intelligent design.” To them, it was unguided chance. This is their position, not mine.

So your premise is flawed, and therefore your question is irrelevant.

By what authority? You? Sorry but I don’t buy it.

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.

Then why are you even bothering?

 

[meltzerboy]

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.

I agree with some of what you say, except your conclusion that atheism necessitates the crafting of one’s own individual morality. This may be true of Sartre’s existentialist form of atheism, but it is not true of Camus’ humanistic atheism, which departed from Sartre’s philosophy. Camus’ humanism incorporates objective moral values, including human solidarity. Now one might protest what makes them objective if they are not bestowed by G-d? Isn’t the philosophy itself based on a false subjective premise? To which humanists would respond that it is no more subjective than religious interpretation is subjective, not only across religions but within the same religion, in that one’s own perception of the objective truth is the basis of one’s definition of truth. Although we may believe we are guided to find that objective truth by, for example, the Holy Spirit and the Church (in Christianity) and the Torah (in Judaism), as well as our G-d-given conscience, we still base our concept of objectivity on our beliefs in and beliefs about the Holy Spirit, the Church, Scripture, the conscience, and the existence and nature of G-d.

 

[atheistgirl]

I think most belief systems, if not all, seem to have some sort of exclusive claim to the truth, which by itself does not necessarily say anything about the validity or truth of their claim. Hinduism, for example, believes in two very uncompromising doctrines - the belief in reincarnation and the Law of Karma. And Buddhism, which came from Hinduism, discarded two doctrines of Hinduism - its caste system and the authority of the Vedas. Islam, which also has an exclusive claim to God, has definite beliefs of rightness. And atheists, some out of kindness and some out of badness, claim that atheism is the only true worldview - atheist Richard Dawkins said, “The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth.” And Jesus was making a very exclusive statement when he said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” which I personally believe. But I am not saying here that one belief system should be considered correct and all the rest incorrect; but I am saying that each belief system claims to “have the whole truth.” I believe that truth by its very nature is exclusive in that everything in the world cannot be either true or false. If every worldview were true, then nothing in the world can be false; but on the other hand, if every worldview were false, then nothing in the world can be true. Two statements that contradict each other cannot both be true.

This is why I feel for religious people of all faiths seeking their percieved truth It’s such an impossible task for them with sso much contradictions and counter-claims to contend with.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

meltzerboy

I agree with some of what you say, except your conclusion that atheism necessitates the crafting of one’s own individual morality.

As an atheist, who other than yourself would be allowed to craft your morality?

I don’t understand the distinction you are trying to make between Sartre and Camus. Moreover, there are as many moral systems as there are atheists, with no cohesive glue to hold them together except their common hatred of religion.

 

[atheistgirl]

Now who is personalizing. :

I was refering to you calling me petty. I dont believe I made personal remarks about you, and it would be great if we could talk without you calling me names I also wasnt ignoring any good that the catholic church, or any church, does or did, I gave the examples I did because they related to a previous post I was addressing.

It may be that youre looking to find offence where there is none, or certainly none is intended, as I would never insult or want to insult my catholic hosts.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

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.

No but there is a lot of anger in your post - and Im not willing to fan the flames further by entering a detailed discussion where you are very likely to be deeply offended and angered further by anything I would say. You hold one in high esteem; that’s for you - but you cannot expect others to feel the same way. Let’s agree to leave it at that. Thanks.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

there are as many moral systems as there are atheists, with no cohesive glue to hold them together except their common hatred of religion.

That’s an intersting point. Can you point me to some reading on this - studies that show atheists do not have a common human morality? Or are more immoral than the average population? I looked at studies on prison populations and atheists are right down low on the figures. Given that crimes are generally in tow with immoral acts, I found that interesting, because from what you say, I would have expected the prisons to be full of atheists. Not people of various faiths.

Sarah x

 

[ishii]

That’s an intersting point. Can you point me to some reading on this - studies that show atheists do not have a common human morality? Or are more immoral than the average population? I looked at studies on prison populations and atheists are right down low on the figures. Given that crimes are generally in tow with immoral acts, I found that interesting, because from what you say, I would have expected the prisons to be full of atheists. Not people of various faiths.

Sarah x

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity? He uses the existence of an objective morality or code that is written on every man’s heart as a basis for arguing for the existence of God.

Ishii

 

[atheistgirl]

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity? He uses the existence of an objective morality or code that is written on every man’s heart as a basis for arguing for the existence of God.

Ishii

Yes the book was recommended to me by a kind poster here - but I dont agree with his need to bring the supernatural into the equation.

Sarah x

 

[meltzerboy]

meltzerboy

I agree with some of what you say, except your conclusion that atheism necessitates the crafting of one’s own individual morality.

As an atheist, who other than yourself would be allowed to craft your morality?

I don’t understand the distinction you are trying to make between Sartre and Camus. Moreover, there are as many moral systems as there are atheists, with no cohesive glue to hold them together except their common hatred of religion.

Camus’ humanism incorporates objective moral values, which all people regard as moral, so that morality is crafted by the solidarity of human beings. Its objectivity is based on mutual human perception. If there is any fault in this philosophy, the fault is no more apparent (according to humanists) than the multiple beliefs, perceptions, dogmas, and doctrines of diverse religions (monotheistic, polytheistic, and so on) as they are interpreted from both within and without. On the other hand, Sartre’s existentialism does not adhere to objective morality, and is more in line with what you noted about the subjectivity of atheism. Not that Sartre is opposed to morality per se in the sense of advocating immorality; rather, his philosophy is simply amoral. However, the most important thing, according to Sartre, is for each human being to choose a course of action. It’s the kind of atheism that does not flatly deny the possibility of the existence of G-d; however, it considers G-d’s existence or non-existence as irrelevant to the way we lead our lives. You’re right: there is no common glue among these philosophies. I wouldn’t say though that all atheists hate religion; they mainly consider the existence of G-d as unproven and unprovable. BTW, let’s refrain from talking about atheism as, if I recall correctly, it is a forbidden topic on this Forum.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

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.

But we can set up a system that measures morality objectively. I proposed one: minimization of suffering, and I’m sure there are others. Does morality exist? Does temperature exist? Temperature is not some fundamental physical property in the same way mass is. It is a useful statistical average of kinetic energy; it is an artificial man-made index. Likewise morality does not have to correspond to some fundamental property of the universe. It just has to be a useful way of describing our behavior.

The original question is ill posed. What he really meant to ask is: in the absence of God, is it possible to empirically determine a definition of morality. Basically, Christians are confidant in their concept of morality because they believe it comes from God. They believe that if there were no God, no moral system would have legitimacy. They feel that the number of people that agree on a particular definition is inadequate measure of legitimacy.

Unfortunately for Christian thinkers, their morality suffers from the same problem. Their definitions of morality stem from their religious beliefs which are based on faith. Essentially this means that their moral beliefs are transitively predicated on faith. Why should a religious person’s faith in one particular moral system trump a non-religious persons moral definitions?

 

[atheistgirl]

I wouldn’t say though that all atheists hate religion; they mainly consider the existence of G-d as unproven and unprovable.

Most atheists I know are not remotely interested in religion, religious discussion or anything else and certainly have not ‘‘hate’’ for it - for that would mean actually caring about it.
I also agree with what you say about the existence of God - I dont necessarily think there isnt one, just that I dont think it can ever be proven one way or another and as some one said, extrodinary claims need extrodianry evidence.

 

[ishii]

Yes the book was recommended to me by a kind poster here - but I dont agree with his need to bring the supernatural into the equation.

Sarah x

You don’t agree with whose need to bring the supernatural into the equation? C.S. Lewis’ or someone else?

 

[meltzerboy]

Most atheists I know are not remotely interested in religion, religious discussion or anything else and certainly have not ‘‘hate’’ for it - for that would mean actually caring about it.
I also agree with what you say about the existence of God - I dont necessarily think there isnt one, just that I dont think it can ever be proven one way or another and as some one said, extrodinary claims need extrodianry evidence.

I’m not sure whether the ban has been lifted, but I seem to recall that a discussion on the topic of atheism is not permitted. But I appreciate your comments.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

It is not necessary to discuss atheism to address this problem. It is sufficient to say that atheistic concepts of morality and theistic concepts of morality enjoy equal legitimacy because they are both created from a subjective view of the world. For religious people, morality is validated by their faith. Atheistic moral systems are similarly evaluated, but they do it more directly: “I have faith that my moral system is accurate and complete.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

I looked at studies on prison populations and atheists are right down low on the figures. Given that crimes are generally in tow with immoral acts, I found that interesting, because from what you say, I would have expected the prisons to be full of atheists. Not people of various faiths.

It happens that I am in the prison ministry. Never look at statistics about prisoners until you have been in the ministry. The simple fact is that very few prisoners in any prison go to weekly chapel. Out of a state prison of 2,000 inmates, The maximum number of Catholics attending weekly services was fifty. Same for Protestants. The people who enter prison are asked to designate religious preference. All that means is that they routinely jot down the name of their parents’ religion. Thus it appears that most of them have religious affiliation, whereas the statistics you cite will never tell you the percent of prisoners who attended church regularly before they were incarcerated. Very few, based on the number that end up in weekly attendance at chapel services.

Religions should not be blamed for the crimes of those who have abandoned their religions or only pay lip service to them. Just keep counting the number of prisoners who rarely attend services. About 90%?

Then tell us that religious people are more criminal than atheists.