The Existence of Objective Morality

[Charlemagne_II]

meltzerboy

**I have singled out humanism (I realize there are different types) on this thread as being somewhat apart from many of the other concepts I mentioned in the sense that it does advocate a culture of life, a mutual human bond of solidarity and interdependence, moral values such as love, kindness, mercy, justice, social and individual rights, and so on. Specifically, Camus’ humanism (which he evolved toward from his initial existential philosophy) is not the same as Sartre’s existentialism, which denies any universal form of morality in favor of the individual’s own. **

Humanism owes much of its moral impetus to the heritage of Christianity. If there had not been Christianity, the humanism of the West today might not be any more gracious than the humanism of the ancient Greeks, who loved slavery, and the Romans, who loved their gladiators.

 

[levinas12]

Thucycidean

Thucydidean

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

It is possible but is not a cogent argument. Why should the minimization of suffering be of any consequence if life itself is of no consequence? A spark in the dark is hardly valuable or significant - unless value and significance are wishful thinking…

Whether or not morality is consequential is related to enforceability I think. You want to say: if there is no eternal punishment, why would morality matter? However, the question of morality’s significance is separate from the question of its existence.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

We can understand them because if life is created by God it is objectively precious whereas if it is an accident it is objectively valueless.

Why not simply have faith that life is objectively precious and cut out the middleman?

 

[tonyrey]

Why not simply have faith that life is objectively precious and cut out the middleman?

Because you have no valid reason for doing so. Camus and Sartre pointed out that life is absurd and meaningless in a Godless universe.

BTW God is not the middleman but the Creator!

 

[hircus_muneris]

The value of something does not depend on being recognised. Otherwise it would be a figment of the imagination. There are objective reasons why things are precious. Life, for example, is precious because it is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, enjoyment and fulfilment.

But if I offer you a gallon of water or a gold coin in the middle of the desert, your choice might be different than in central London. They say that there are no atheists in foxholes.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Because you have no valid reason for doing so. Camus and Sartre pointed out that life is absurd and meaningless in a Godless universe.

The value of something does not depend on being recognised. Otherwise it would be a figment of the imagination. There are objective reasons why things are precious. Life, for example, is precious because it is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, enjoyment and fulfilment.

It seems like you provided some reasons yourself.

Nietzsche believed that mankind’s opportunities for becoming better, and exceeding their limitations was what made them precious. Why did he think that “God is dead?” because he believed that mankind no longer needed God to explain their own worth or provide their morality.

 

[hircus_muneris]

ServiceKid

**How can anything be objectively precious? Is not preciousness a subjective trait which is only apparent to an observer? Please explain what you mean by that. **

What do you understand to be the definition of objective morality? What is your definition of subjective morality? It seems you have not thought through your definitions.

But that is not the case. There are human beings, and their acts can be (and should be) classified as objectively good or objectively evil.

How can anything be objectively precious? Because it is really valued. Not all people may value the same thing to the same degree. But when they don’t, you have to look at why they don’t. If it’s a matter of taste only, then chocolate is as good as vanilla, or better. But if it is a matter of nutrition (what is good for you as opposed to what may be **bad **for you) it is objectively certain that fruits and vegetables are better for you than candy and potato chips.

In the class of moral acts, some are better than others. Even general principles can be compared with some found to be excellent and others found to be a good deal less than excellent.

For example:

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

versus

“Do unto others before they do it unto you.”

As general principles, the former principle is objectively superior to the latter. The former principle encourages peace. The latter principle encourages war.

When confronted by the necessity to choose between two evils, always choose the lesser evil. This might seem to contradict the principle that we should never choose evil, but it doesn’t. What it affirms is that some good can be achieved by choosing the lesser of the two evils, whereas no good can be achieved by choosing the greater of the two evils.

During the days of the Egyptian, Persian, Greek and Roman empires and for centuries later the world endured slavery. The great debate among the ancients was not whether slavery was justified, but whether it was preferable to slaughter of the vanquished. The slaughter of the vanquished was always opposed by the Church as the greater evil, so that slavery became endured until by the leaven of Christianity it might be vanquished altogether.

When slavery was immediately re-introduced in the 1400s into the West through the raiding of African villages specifically for that purpose, the popes began to crusade against it. It was no longer a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, but of introducing a new principle of venality that the West had not seen for centuries. It was no longer a question of the greater evil of slaying the conquered or of the lesser evil of enslaving them, but only of what was the best price to get for their forced labor. That was the objective evil against which the popes began to rant during the Renaissance.

The same for usury. The popes presided over the fall of the Roman Empire and several of them (Leo the Great and Gregory the Great) prevented that fall from being more disastrous than it was. By the time of Constantine the Roman banks were charging 12% interest on loans. It is possible that this, more than anything other single cause, brought about the collapse of the Empire. Anyone who has run up his credit card today and found it nearly impossible to pay off the loan because of unconscionable interest rates, can see why the popes were against money-lending. They saw it as a profound evil from which it might be impossible to recover without disastrous measures. When we look at our own national debt, and see how deeply we are entrenched in it, we might see the wisdom of those earlier popes who opposed usury as the path to plunder for many.

If you watch Fox News, occasionally they will show the clock and how fast our national debt is rising just from the interest on loans from China. Every minute or so it goes up several millions of dollars.

cjd.org/paper/theme.html

Scroll down to “Stamp Out … Usury” remarks.

Collectively, we don’t seem to value our planet as much as we will in the intermediate future, if current trends continue. At the rate that water supplies are being destroyed or polluted, one might predict that water will become more precious. Wealthy individuals and companies are rapidly tying up water rights as I type this. They seem to have come to the same conclusion. If you give a pound of gold to some hypothetical person who has never seen gold, and has no idea of its monetary equivalence, he may chose a plate of Twinkies as having more value. There is something relative and subjective about the “value” of a material thing. If you are advancing the argument that there are things of intrinsic value in the spiritual realm, such as the soul, then we are likely to agree.

I am with you on choosing the lesser of two evils. It seems we do that at the polls with every election. But seriously, I was confusing my own concept of relativism with the way that the term moral relativism is commonly used here. I would not argue with the proposition that there is a set of enduring moral values which are immutable. I am still considering my position on what I am calling the “peripheral” issues, for lack of a better term. For example, what would clearly be adultery to a Christian, would be a legitimate behavior among friends among some South Pacific cultures. Those cultures would accept most of the commandments as part of their moral code, but not the commandment on adultery. This is not a great analogy, because I do accept all of the commandments as moral precepts. But I wonder if there are teachings of the Church which are more culturally derived, than from scripture. I can’t point to anything like that at the moment… it is just a lingering hunch which may or may not be dispelled

 

[hircus_muneris]

Whether or not morality is consequential is related to enforceability I think. You want to say: if there is no eternal punishment, why would morality matter? However, the question of morality’s significance is separate from the question of its existence.

The consequences of immorality is the dissolution of communal life - or society as we like to enjoy it. There are cultures where the worst punishment would be banishment. For many people, it is not a fear of enforcement, but a desire to live in harmony with others that motivates compliance. For Christians, I hope it is more out of wanting to be in harmony with God’s tenets, than out of fear of punishment for being discordant.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The consequences of immorality is the dissolution of communal life - or society as we like to enjoy it. There are cultures where the worst punishment would be banishment. For many people, it is not a fear of enforcement, but a desire to live in harmony with others that motivates compliance. For Christians, I hope it is more out of wanting to be in harmony with God’s tenets, than out of fear of punishment for being discordant.

Then couldn’t we define morality by the extent to which it promotes social cohesiveness? That seems like a god-less and objective definition.

 

[hircus_muneris]

Then couldn’t we define morality by the extent to which it promotes social cohesiveness? That seems like a god-less and objective definition.

Sure, you could. Freud did, I guess Durkheim did, other great minds have done so. But that is the point of this whole thread. The Catholic position is that there is an enduring standard, which is handed down by God. As I am learning, when Catholics (and feel free to correct me, those who are more expert in Catholic doctrine) refer to something as being “objective”, they are referring to the postulates of their system (to use a mathematical example), and not necessarily to that which can be objectively perceived or reasoned in a scientific sense, even though many of the early philosophers and theists who proposed the concept of Natural Law were great scientists in their time. Catholics mean that which is revealed by God, and/or determined through inference from that which is revealed by God, and expounded in the Catechism and other official pronouncement of faith, and as the doctrine of Natural Law - which by that they mean the nature of things as God intends.

I am still figuring out what is doctrinal, vs other forms of authority.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Sure, you could. Freud did, I guess Durkheim did, other great minds have done so. But that is the point of this whole thread. The Catholic position is that there is an enduring standard, which is handed down by God. As I am learning, when Catholics (and feel free to correct me, those who are more expert in Catholic doctrine) refer to something as being “objective”, they are referring to the postulates of their system (to use a mathematical example), and not necessarily that which can be objectively perceived or reasoned. They mean that which is revealed by God, or determined through inference from that which is revealed by God, and extrapolated as Natural Law - which by that they mean the nature of things as God intends.

So then the original question: “Can objective morality exist if God does not?” is actually equivalent to:

“Can God hand down an enduring standard of morality when God does not exist?”
That seems like a trivially false question.

 

[hircus_muneris]

So then the original question: “Can objective morality exist if God does not?” is actually equivalent to:

“Can God hand down an enduring standard of morality when God does not exist?”
That seems like a trivially false question.

Yes, from a Catholic perspective it is a trivial question, in which case the answer is a resounding “NO”. From a secular perspective the answer might be something like… well every culture arrives at the same basic tenets of morality independently. A Catholic might respond that God has imbued all men with an innate awareness of Natural Law, as this is actually an explication of the nature of man. As all men have this nature, they naturally know right from wrong. Failure to listen to this inner voice has a corrosive effect on the soul of man, whether he is Catholic or heathen.

The question… of something existing if God does not exist, is outside of the realm of Catholic theology. Postulate number one is that God does exist. Without that, then there is nothing.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

?

I’m assuming this means you think my statement was nonsense? Here, let me clarify. Objective morality is basically a set of morals or one particular moral that exists beyond the subjective. The moral system is a code that doesn’t change and peoples interpretation of it or of the events do not impact on what is or is not moral. A good example can be found here.

The concept of something being objectively moral is different all together as it is a matter of absolute right and wrongs that are definitely true. I am unaware of any method to verify if something is or is not objectively moral, I only have my own conscience.

 

[tonyrey]

The value of something does not depend on being recognised. Otherwise it would be a figment of the imagination. There are objective reasons why things are precious. Life, for example, is precious because it is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, enjoyment and fulfilment.

Our basic needs are still the same! If water in London became scarce our first priority would be finding it!

They say that there are no atheists in foxholes.

That reminds me of Dr Johnson’s remark: “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

The prospect of death is an antidote to dogmatism!

 

[hircus_muneris]

Our basic needs are still the same! If water in London became scarce our first priority would be finding it!

That reminds me of Dr Johnson’s remark: “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

The prospect of death is an antidote to dogmatism!

Haha… reminds me of a round of strip pool in just my underpants with a bar full of people looking on. I was very focused on my game. Marines do some stupid stuff to blow off steam.

 

[John21652]

Collectively, we don’t seem to value our planet as much as we will in the intermediate future, if current trends continue. At the rate that water supplies are being destroyed or polluted, one might predict that water will become more precious. Wealthy individuals and companies are rapidly tying up water rights as I type this. They seem to have come to the same conclusion. If you give a pound of gold to some hypothetical person who has never seen gold, and has no idea of its monetary equivalence, he may chose a plate of Twinkies as having more value. There is something relative and subjective about the “value” of a material thing. If you are advancing the argument that there are things of intrinsic value in the spiritual realm, such as the soul, then we are likely to agree.

I am with you on choosing the lesser of two evils. It seems we do that at the polls with every election. But seriously, I was confusing my own concept of relativism with the way that the term moral relativism is commonly used here. I would not argue with the proposition that there is a set of enduring moral values which are immutable. I am still considering my position on what I am calling the “peripheral” issues, for lack of a better term. For example, what would clearly be adultery to a Christian, would be a legitimate behavior among friends among some South Pacific cultures. Those cultures would accept most of the commandments as part of their moral code, but not the commandment on adultery. This is not a great analogy, because I do accept all of the commandments as moral precepts. But I wonder if there are teachings of the Church which are more culturally derived, than from scripture. I can’t point to anything like that at the moment… it is just a lingering hunch which may or may not be dispelled

Perhaps you might care to enlighten us on which “…some South Pacific cultures” condoned what we call ‘adultery’. I take it you are familiar with Anthropologist Margaret Mead’s tomes ]*Coming of Age in Samoa *and *Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935)? *Mead attempted to prove that the sex roles were mainly a result of cultural conditioning. Absolutely no affirmations of her consclusions resulted from later Anthropological study. Hence, Mead is responsible for the myth that adultery was condoned in “some” pacific cultures. It wasn’t. In many Pacific cultures it was punishable by death. Her daughter later revealed that Mead had enjoyed a sexual relationship with one of her mentors, Anthropologist Ruth Benedict. Mead also divorced her husband and ran off with another Anthropologist, Gregory Bateson, whom she met in New Guineau whilst studying there with her husband. Mead is now notorious for beginning her study with preconcieved ideas. She is also notorious for actively seeking a broader sexual morality in her own, American, society. She has much to answer for, because she deliberately hid the objective values even south sea islanders shared with populations on the other side of the world. Her Coming of Age in Samoa was discredited by New Zealand Anthropologist Derek Freeman. Even before she arrived at any ‘scientific’ conclusions, Mead was already a champion of the moral relativity she "saw’ in other cultures.

 

[tonyrey]

Haha… reminds me of a round of strip pool in just my underpants with a bar full of people looking on. I was very focused on my game. Marines do some stupid stuff to blow off steam.

:clapping: I forgot to welcome you to the forum!

 

[meltzerboy]

The CC claims both that she has the fullness of truth and that humans must be true to their consciences-even when the two apparently conflict.

But if one’s individual conscience conflicts with Church doctrine, isn’t it the Catholic’s responsibility to obey Church teaching, while striving to understand it better so that one’s own views may become consistent with those of the Church? In other words, the two are not exactly on equal footing, are they?

 

[fhansen]

But if one’s individual conscience conflicts with Church doctrine, isn’t it the Catholic’s responsibility to obey Church teaching, while striving to understand it better so that one’s own views may become consistent with those of the Church? In other words, the two are not exactly on equal footing, are they?

No, the Church unashamedly maintains that she possesses truths that God’s revealed, for the good of humankind, regarding His nature and will. That happens to be, in one sense, what this thread is all about, BTW-is it possible for man to unite in some way with something that’s situated at a more foundational level of the universe than himself so that he can know with some degree of certainty what the right and wrong way for him to live in this world is? Our faith says ‘yes’.

In any event the church also maintains that the personal conscience is sovereign, so to speak, and that while one should give her the benefit of the doubt and consider her teachings, no one can or should force them to believe any of it, including themselves. This is actually an impossibility, in fact. To the extent we agree with her we do believe and are therefore Catholic. To the extent we don’t agree with her, I suppose we’re Catholic in name only.