The Existence of Objective Morality

[meltzerboy]

There are no values which all people have always regarded as moral except within clans, but not between competing clans. There is no more reason to think that common beliefs about what is moral makes those beliefs objectively true than common beliefs about the solar system made those beliefs true … otherwise we should expect to see the sun revolving around the earth since that’s what everyone believed. There was a world wide belief that slavery was acceptable. The tables have turned only in the last 200 years, so which position is the objectively moral one and how could we possibly know?
The existence of multiple religious beliefs is often brought up as if this alone constituted a significant argument that none of them could be true. Given that there are even more examples of philosophical beliefs, surely that argument would apply to them as well, so, given that no religion could be right (because there are so many of them) and that no philosophy could be right (for exactly the same reason), it must be that truth in this area cannot exist … either that or the objection from multiplicity is invalid.

Ender

Your position is apparently that objective morality is impossible without G-d who basically informs us (through divine inspiration and His Word) what the absolute truth really is. The humanist position is that not only is G-d unnecessary because humans can come together to decide on a common morality; but also the belief in G-d (or gods) clouds the issue since one must ask whose G-d (or gods), which Word (scriptures), and which beliefs? To answer this question, humanists say we have to come back to humans, because the answer depends on human interpretation of which G-d (or gods), which revelation, which dogma, doctrines, beliefs and so forth. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME TRUTH AND HENCE THEY ARE SUBJECTIVE IN THE SENSE OF ALL BEING DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE TRUTH! And if religions cannot agree anyway since we’re relying on human interpretation of the truth as claimed by these many religions, why not cut out the middle man, so to speak? Can you understand the dilemma from the perspective of humanists, even if you don’t agree? It’s not faulty logic in my view. Furthermore, it may also be the case that NO religious belief sees the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That in itself does NOT mean there is 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 humanism. (BTW, wasn’t the geocentric solar system example you note a belief of the Church at the time, or perhaps a purported belief on their part?)

 

[fhansen]

The fact that people, when contemplating God, don’t necessarily agree as to his nature and will, does not mean that God doesn’t exist, any more than the fact that scientific theories in disagreement on the origins of the universe or of life means there is no universe or life. For now, at the most basic level, many agree that not only is Gods’ existence necessary, but at least that he actually has a nature and a will. And the fact that so many have contemplated him, for whatever reasons, lends credence to his existence-to the notion that there may well be good reason for this contemplation.

And the more extreme possibility, that he’s taken it upon himself to reveal something of his nature and will more specifically to humans, to a people chosen for that purpose, in a way that doesn’t overwhelm their freedom to deny him and his will, so that they may continue to choose for themselves which way they’ll live and comport themselves, is not outside the realm of reason either, IMO

 

[atheistgirl]

Atheism is not the subject of this thread, but since you have attacked religious morality by putting most criminals in the category of religious people (which most of them certainly are not, based on my experience with prisoners), and since you have used the atheist Christopher Hitchens to slam Mother Teresa, I have to say that you have demonstrated some contempt of your own for religious morality in this very thread.

You should not act surprised to be found with your hand in that cookie jar!

Prisoners - the facts of the matter is most prisoners identify with some form of religion or faith, and if you work with prisoners you know this. Youre the one who suggested theyre not people of faith because they dont go to a church or service regularly. I pointed out by that criteria then most people of faith are atheists because most people of various faiths do not attend chruch regualrly.
I didnt slam Mother Teresa, I referred to a different opinion of her held by some. That’s not slamming, thats just saying there’s two sides to every account.

Ive noticed all your replies to me recently are tending to be rather personal, rather than focusing on the issue. Please try and stick to the issue raised and refer to this, rather than trying to bring your posts to focus on me personally. Thanks.

Oh, and my hand isnt in any cookie jar. I dont steal. Unlike the sizeable population of prisoners of faith in gaols for theft.

Sarah x

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheist

Prisoners - the facts of the matter is most prisoners identify with some form of religion or faith, and if you work with prisoners you know this. Youre the one who suggested theyre not people of faith because they dont go to a church or service regularly.

Do the math, girl. If anyone calls himself a Christian and never goes to Church, that adds up to a hypocrite. The same for atheists in prison who don’t identify themselves as atheists because they don’t want that designation to be on their form when they go for a parole hearing.

"if you work with prisoners" ? Do you think this may be a ruse on my part?

Your personal attacks on Christians as more likely than atheists to be in prison is just too silly and too much.

I’m done with you.

 

[levinas12]

There is a recent phenomenon in moral philosophy called the aretaic turn, which largely recalls Aristotle’s Ethics. In Modern Moral Philosophy, Anscombe calls for abandoning the philosophical concepts of duty (as in Kantian ethics) and of quantifiable pleasure (as in utilitarianism). In their place, she suggests deeper inquiry into human psychology, the nature of virtue, and eudaimonia.

I feel that virtue ethics will largely supplant the other ethical systems, outside of those that are divine command theories of one sort or another.

Virtue ethics is a great philosophical topic. It assumes there is such a thing as human excellence (analogous to excellence in sports). Just as there are good basketball players, there are good human beings. When we are doing prudent, just, temperate and brave things, we are actualizing our potential as human beings. Virtues are the ends of human activity. How do we know this? Because most people in the everyday world praise virtues. Philosophy’s job is simply to make this explicit. We already know implicitly that the virtues are “beautiful” unless there is something wrong with us. And virtuous actions are often public and manifest.

I agree that there are particular cases where those who appear good are really not so good. But this does not taint the truth (i.e., disclosure or manifestness) of morality as such.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Objective morality can exist without God. That’s why God gave us all a conscience. But objective morality can be transformed into subjective morality without God’s guidance. The religious person can persuade himself that his particular sin is not all that bad, but then the Commandments and the Church are there to remind him that the sin is all that bad. Without religion, what guidance does anyone get when he persuades himself that his particular sin really is that bad? Society? But if society’s sins are as bad, or even worse, how does that help? Or if society is without sin, why is that? Is it not because society has been cleansed by the leaven of religious values that have yet to be corrupted? These values pervade society, and even if a person without religion grows up in a society dominated by Christian values, he cannot help but absorb by osmosis the very values he might consciously repudiate if he knew they came from religion rather than from society.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Virtue ethics is a great philosophical topic. It assumes there is such a thing as human excellence (analogous to excellence in sports). Just as there are good basketball players, there are good human beings. When we are doing prudent, just, temperate and brave things, we are actualizing our potential as human beings. Virtues are the ends of human activity. How do we know this? Because most people in the everyday world praise virtues. Philosophy’s job is simply to make this explicit. We already know implicitly that the virtues are “beautiful” unless there is something wrong with us. And virtuous actions are often public and manifest.

It’s also a good way to find common moral ground among people with differing beliefs about the content or existence of divine moral commands. Apparently even psychology is looking into the notion of virtue, with things like a catalog of Character Strengths and Virtues as a parallel to the DSM- handbook of mental disorders. Wikipedia includes a quotation “…empirically minded humanists can measure character strengths and virtues in a rigorous scientific manner.”

I think I’ll have to check this book out.

 

[levinas12]

Objective morality can exist without God. That’s why God gave us all a conscience. But objective morality can be transformed into subjective morality without God’s guidance. The religious person can persuade himself that his particular sin is not all that bad, but then the Commandments and the Church are there to remind him that the sin is all that bad. Without religion, what guidance does anyone get when he persuades himself that his particular sin really is that bad? Society? But if society’s sins are as bad, or even worse, how does that help? Or if society is without sin, why is that? Is it not because society has been cleansed by the leaven of religious values that have yet to be corrupted? These values pervade society, and even if a person without religion grows up in a society dominated by Christian values, he cannot help but absorb by osmosis the very values he might consciously repudiate if he knew they came from religion rather than from society.

There is a distinction between a philosophical and a theological approach to morality. Aristotle and Plato represent the philosophical. But they did not have sufficient knowledge about the existence of a non-human agent of evil. They had their suspicions - they were perplexed why the “good” are “defeated” in this world. In the twentieth century, Hannah Arendt (not a believer) also worried about an inexplicable, “radical” evil.

So philosophical ethics, in a way, has hit a wall. Only the theological, the soteriological, can show us the way out of the catastrophe of history.

 

[levinas12]

It’s also a good way to find common moral ground among people with differing beliefs about the content or existence of divine moral commands. Apparently even psychology is looking into the notion of virtue, with things like a catalog of Character Strengths and Virtues as a parallel to the DSM- handbook of mental disorders. Wikipedia includes a quotation “…empirically minded humanists can measure character strengths and virtues in a rigorous scientific manner.”

I think I’ll have to check this book out.

But the conversation is never over.

There is philosophy; and there is theology. Aristotle and Plato represent the philosophical (“virtue” ethics). But they were both anxious about whether the “good” could be realized - they saw what happened to Socrates (and Aristotle saw what became of Alexander). They came to the realization that there is no way to guarantee the production of “good” humans - education does not work - a “good” man is a matter of luck.

And they came to suspect that there is an inexplicable, radical evil at work in the world.

In the twentieth century, Hannah Arendt (not a believer) came to the same conclusion.

Philosophical ethics smashed into a wall.

And so some of us have turned to something more theological, more soteriological. How else does one confront the catastrophe of history? A future Utopia does not redeem the countless millions that have already been slaughtered - and is really not very believable in the first place (because, although we know the good, for some reason we can’t do the good).

But, for those who want to give it a try for the umpteenth time, I say, have at it.

 

[Ender]

Your position is apparently that objective morality is impossible without G-d who basically informs us (through divine inspiration and His Word) what the absolute truth really is.

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.

The humanist position is that not only is G-d unnecessary because humans can come together to decide on a common 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.

… but also the belief in G-d (or gods) clouds the issue since one must ask whose G-d (or gods), which Word (scriptures), and which beliefs?

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.

Can you understand the dilemma from the perspective of humanists, even if you don’t agree?

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.

Furthermore, it may also be the case that NO religious belief sees the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That in itself does NOT mean there is 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 humanism.

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.

(BTW, wasn’t the geocentric solar system example you note a belief of the Church at the time, or perhaps a purported belief on their part?)

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

 

[levinas12]

… we can’t do the good …

To be more precise, we can’t be truly good if we rely entirely on our own resources.

Both Aristotle and Plato came to see the limits of human self-sufficiency. The Greek tragedians also underscored this with their concept of hubris.

And of course this is the message of St Paul.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

But the conversation is never over.
But they were both anxious about whether the “good” could be realized - they saw what happened to Socrates (and Aristotle saw what became of Alexander).

I don’t think there is textual evidence for anxiety on Plato’s or Aristotle’s part.

And they came to suspect that there is an inexplicable, radical evil at work in the world.

I don’t think that’s a good interpretation of Aristotle’s account of vice. Evil is not inexplicable – it happens when people aim at something outside of the virtuous mean. Some people are educated or habituated to pursue a vicious goal, but they are doing so because they are mistakenly pursuing something they believe to be good.

In the twentieth century, Hannah Arendt (not a believer) came to the same conclusion.

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. Following from the above statement about mistakenly pursuing something, and using the example from “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” Eichmann was convinced he was doing good by being efficient, polite, following orders, and the like. And these are virtues in other contexts!

Philosophical ethics smashed into a wall.

I don’t think this is where walls were smashed into. I think the utilitarian attempt to turn morality into algebra, or the Kantian attempt to establish duty from reason alone, were where walls were smashed into.

And so some of us have turned to something more theological, more soteriological. How else does one confront the catastrophe of history? A future Utopia does not redeem the countless millions that have already been slaughtered - and is really not very believable in the first place (because, although we know the good, for some reason we can’t do the good).

I don’t see why “redeeming the countless millions that have already been slaughtered” is a prerequisite – in fact, I don’t even understand what that means.

And I disagree. From what I see, the vast majority of people do the good the vast majority of the time. There aren’t thousands or millions of Hitlers (or even Eichmanns) running around. And even Hitler cared for animals.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

All I’m saying is that, if there is no God, then, whether or not we can find a “morality gene”/natural law in humans, there’s no compelling reason for us to follow it anyway, as we have free will. And, in fact, no matter where morality comes from, there’s no compelling reason to follow it, in fact, unless we believe that some fundamental justice requires it-and then consciously choose to “obey”.

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.

Yes, Christians would define objective morality as existing within mans conscience prior to any reflection on the matter, but that man has the capability-with reason and free will- to override this faculty, thereby essentially changing human morality from objective to subjective-or relative- for all practical purposes. I’d believe it’d be safe to say that where we observe consistencies in basic human morality, the universal, objective aspect of morality is reflected. Where we see inconsistencies, the relative aspect of morality is shown. Otherwise, when history tells us that large numbers of people in a given society have decided that child sacrifice is good, we might have to accept that such behavior is normal for humans.

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. 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.

As for practices such as human sacrifice, those are principally predicated on superstition. Superstition is based on a demonstrably incorrect understanding of the world around us (e.g. killing people makes crops grow.) To guard against such erroneous moral systems, we should take great care to anchor our moral beliefs in reality.

 

[atheistgirl]

Your personal attacks on Christians as more likely than atheists to be in prison is just too silly and too much.

The No True Scotsman fallacy.
definition of No True Scotsman:

The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.[1]

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again.” Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing.” The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing.”
—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking (1975)

I’m done with you.

Good. Thank you.

Sarah x

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

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.

Reminds me of this comic:
smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1899#comic

 

[levinas12]

I don’t think there is textual evidence for anxiety on Plato’s or Aristotle’s part …

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 …

I don’t see why “redeeming the countless millions that have already been slaughtered” is a prerequisite – in fact, I don’t even understand what that means …

And I disagree. From what I see, the vast majority of people do the good the vast majority of the time …

Oh no, you’re going to make me work …

I believe there’s textual support that Plato and Aristotle eventually realized that the ancient “enlightenment” political project had failed. There is some scholarship in this area that you may find interesting. I’ll try to track it down.

Also, I’ll try to come up with a cite for Arendt. The evil can be “banal” or “mindless” - it’s radical and inexplicable because it is “groundless”.

The problem of the millions who have already been slaughtered - I was thinking of Walter Benjamin’s discussion of Klee’s Angelus Novus.

As for the vast majority of people doing good most of the time, I take a more jaudiced view. There is too much dysfunctionality in human relationships for this to be true.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

No True Scotsman Fallacy originated by atheist Antony Flew who shortly before his death admitted to the existence of God. A well documented fact.

Flew’s argument:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again.” Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing.” The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing.”
—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking (1975)

I answer that:

That the fallacy exists in some contexts must be allowed. Some true Scotsmen certainly could be capable of heinous crimes, because the definition of a true Scotsman does not require that one be incapable of such acts. To be a true Scotsman one need only be a citizen of Scotland with the proper birth certificate.
It is interesting that this fallacy should have been discovered by an atheist and applied so often by atheists to discredit the Christian claim that no true Christian, while waving the Christian banner, would engage in savage acts of wanton cruelty, destruction, and murder. Hitler is an example. Baptized a Catholic (though he was no longer Catholic during his dictatorship) some atheists will insist that his religion was at the root of his monstrous acts. In other words, as Catholics we cannot avoid Hitler’s scandalizing the Church by saying that no true Catholic could be so evil. According to Flew, this would be equivalent to saying no true Scotsman could be so evil, which is clearly illogical.
But Flew has grossly oversimplified the application of this fallacy. Whereas anyone can define a true Scotsman as one who has citizenship papers, the atheist does not get to define who is a Christian as opposed to who is not. It is Christ alone who can define a true Christian, and here is his definition:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them…. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit…. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew 7:15-23 “I never knew you” must certainly mean, at the very least, “You are not a true Christian.”
Jacques Maritain echoed Christ’s definition of a true Christian in his book The Range of Reason. “There are practical atheists who believe that they believe in God (and who perhaps believe in Him in their brains) but who in reality deny His existence by each one of their deeds. Out of the living God they have made an idol.” Following Maritain’s logic, we may allow a far greater number of atheists in the world than we ever imagined.
The leaders of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Wars of the Reformation were practical atheists. Christ did not preach crusades, or torture on the rack, or religious wars. Those who did preach such things were not true Christians. There is plenty of evidence that the real aim of these crimes was the lust for power, gold, and other men’s property. These perpetrators, who dared to speak for Christ and waved his banner, were “wolves among the sheep,” and Christ “never knew them.” But that is not to say they were not very well known by their inner demons.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

levinas

I believe there’s textual support that Plato and Aristotle eventually realized that the ancient “enlightenment” political project had failed. There is some scholarship in this area that you may find interesting. I’ll try to track it down.

Aristotle certainly suffered anxiety upon learning of Alexander’s death. Conscious that Alexander was his only protection from his many enemies, Aristotle fled Athens. The Golden Age was done.

Likewise, in his Republic it’s evident that Plato was anxious about the future of Athenian democracy since he fantasizes so brilliantly about at age of philosopher/kings who will not be subject to the irrational and unpredictable whims of the pure democracy that sacrificed Socrates on the altar of self-righteousness.

We see today what our much vaunted democracy has produced: a government that cares more about votes than righteousness.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

As for the vast majority of people doing good most of the time, I take a more jaudiced view. There is too much dysfunctionality in human relationships for this to be true.

I didn’t say they were perfect, I said they were good most of the time.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

There is philosophy; and there is theology. Aristotle and Plato represent the philosophical (“virtue” ethics). But they were both anxious about whether the “good” could be realized - they saw what happened to Socrates (and Aristotle saw what became of Alexander). They came to the realization that there is no way to guarantee the production of “good” humans - education does not work - a “good” man is a matter of luck.

And they came to suspect that there is an inexplicable, radical evil at work in the world.

In the twentieth century, Hannah Arendt (not a believer) came to the same conclusion.

Philosophical ethics smashed into a wall.

And so some of us have turned to something more theological, more soteriological. How else does one confront the catastrophe of history? A future Utopia does not redeem the countless millions that have already been slaughtered - and is really not very believable in the first place (because, although we know the good, for some reason we can’t do the good).

But, for those who want to give it a try for the umpteenth time, I say, have at it.

That is something of a silly line of reasoning in a thread about the existence of objective morality in a world with no God. If (as they seem to claim) objective morality proves the existence of God, then in a godless world there could be no objective morality. Therefore, when these ethicists judged certain actions to be objectively evil, they were basically begging the question.

However, we are discussing the very existence of objective morality, not how it is applied.