The Existence of Objective Morality

[tonyrey]

tonyrey:
"justified by having valid reasons" makes all the difference! We are entitled to believe what we like but whether our faith is rational depends on whether we have reasons.
I mean of course “good reasons”!

 

[wanstronian]

wanstronian

If theists could get just one stupid, ridiculous, baseless, utterly wrong fallacy out of their narrow-minded, bigoted heads, I think I’d like it to be this one.

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

No ad hominem at all, actually.

But if you don’t want to answer my posts, that’s your prerogative.

 

[wanstronian]

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!

Okay - so we agree that we can’t point to a specific physical property of the Universe and claim it to be the sole source of morality, logic etc.

That doesn’t mean that we can’t point to a process as the source. The process that evolved intelligence leads naturally to the “invention” of morality, logic etc.

And that process has been shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to be Evolution by Natural Selection. The theistic alternative - that an unexplainable, undetectable deity just granted these attributes, is incoherent, unsupported by evidence, and raises more questions that it answers.

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

How is that relevant? If you’re claiming that emergent properties can only apply to physical phenomena, you’re going to have to justify such a claim.

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.

The idea of spontaneous creation by a deity explains nothing - it’s just a simplistic answer. The evolutionary answer holds far more explanatory power, and is supported by plentiful evidence.

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

Of course it accounts for individual morality - we’re not automata. We’re imperfect individuals who regularly put our own interests ahead of the common good. That doesn’t mean that we’re incapable of recognising the difference.

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.

“to do what we’re convinced is right?” Then this is hardly objective morality, is it - it’s the subjective conviction of individuals.

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

And your **objective **rationale for asserting the immense value of existence is?

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

Yes, I know you do. However, your belief is just your personal conjecture - it holds no sway over anybody else. You’re entitled to your belief, but you have no evidence that it’s true. You have no evidence of a Creator, let alone one who is moral in nature. The god of the bible is irrefutably immoral by modern standards - where do you stand on his alleged actions? Is this the Creator to which you refer?

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

No, we’re not. Animals have demonstrated rationality and morality also. This is well-documented.

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.

I agree with your criteria for morality - but those criteria are very broad and can in no way be described as objective. Do you eat meat? If so, that harms others - it harms animals. You might believe that animals are there for the benefit of humans (I’m not saying that this is the case, but it might be). Others would disagree. Bang goes the objectivity - your criteria are open to interpretation.

This is exactly why morality is demonstrably a subjective phenomenen (or objective in terms of mass agreement - but this is dependent on culture, demographics and a whole range of other criteria).

And the criteria you have set out are demonstrably not followed by any of the Abrahamic gods, so what objective source have your criteria come from? Well, as it happens, the criteria you have set out are pretty much exactly what one would expect from a species that has evolved to live in social harmony. So this seems a far more likely explanation than “God did it.”

So again I ask - where are your criteria documented, and what is your rationale for believing that this source is objective, immutable and consistent?

 

[wanstronian]

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.

Yes - as has been demonstrated by historical fact. Nobody is able to define an objective morality. For instance, is slavery good, bad or neutral? I’d say bad, but some people in some cultures would have a different opinion. The god of the old Testament clearly has a different opinion. So am I wrong - is slavery acceptable? The answer is - at a certain time, in a certain place, it was. Now, in most places, it isn’t.

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?

Because it’s flawed. “If God existed then he would be source. Therefore he’s the source.” Fine. Once you prove that God exists, then you only have to provide good answers as to why he acts so immorally in the OT, and why he allows so much unnecessary suffering in the world, and you’ll have an argument. But since nobody has ever been able to answer these questions other than by frankly ludicrous semantic gymnastics and absurdly elaborate exegesis, then I won’t hold my breath.

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

I think that undersells it somewhat. Convention implies a certain laissez-faire attitude, whereas the reality is that morality is a cornerstone of our functioning as a society. When I say it’s not an invention, I simply mean that someone didn’t have a Eureka moment and suddenly morality existed. Morality has its nascence in our evolutionary history, evidenced by the fact that certain animals demonstrate limited morality.

Of course, to accept this, one has to accept evolution as a fact. And despite it having significantly more consistent evidence than heliocentrism, some people still resist the reality of our origins.

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?

This is a bit of a lazy answer. But since you mention the word “standard” - can you define the immutable, consistent, all-encompassing standard to which you claim to conform? And can you point to where it is defined and provide evidence of its ultimate source as non-human?

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

Then we have different opinions. My opinion lies with scientific evidence. Maybe yours is based on an underlying belief that all non-human animals are dumb instinctives and we humans were created directly by an arbitrary deity… despite the irrefutable evidence that contradicts such a belief.

 

[Pieman333272]

No ad hominem at all, actually.

But if you don’t want to answer my posts, that’s your prerogative.

Considering you didn’t answer his post, you’re hardly in a position to speak. You can’t just say “no ad homenim there” you need to show that your wildly bigoted and closed-minded attack was either called for or was a substantial argument. Or was paired with one.

***The Fallacy Cop…

STRIKES AGAIN!!***

 

[wanstronian]

Considering you didn’t answer his post, you’re hardly in a position to speak. You can’t just say “no ad homenim there” you need to show that your wildly bigoted and closed-minded attack was either called for or was a substantial argument. Or was paired with one.

***The Fallacy Cop…

STRIKES AGAIN!!***

Er - I did address his post. If you bother to look back through the thread, you’ll see that C2 specifically said that he was going to answer MY post, then decided not to due to what he mistakenly thought were ad hominems on my part. My response to his post is not fallacious in the slightest - I simply reject his accusation of ad hom, then acknowledge his decision not to engage with me further.

As for “wildly bigoted and closed-minded attack,” can you clarify where I did this?

Why the childish big red text, btw?

 

[Pieman333272]

Er - I did address his post. If you bother to look back through the thread, you’ll see that C2 specifically said that he was going to answer MY post, then decided not to due to what he mistakenly thought were ad hominems on my part. My response to his post is not fallacious in the slightest - I simply reject his accusation of ad hom, then acknowledge his decision not to engage with me further.

Well, just rejecting his accusation doesn’t make you right. It was ad hom. If you’re saying you did it only because Charlemagne didn’t answer your post, then that’s a 2 wrongs make a right fallacy. And looking at the original post, if it’s been destroyed “time and time again”, why even bother debating it?

As for “wildly bigoted and closed-minded attack,” can you clarify where I did this?

Where Charelmagne calls you out.

Why the childish big red text, btw?

It’s called having fun.

 

[wanstronian]

Well, just rejecting his accusation doesn’t make you right. It was ad hom.

There’s a common misconception that saying someone is stupid or bigoted or whatever, is ad hom. It isn’t. Saying that someone’s argument is poor because they’re stupid is ad hom. Saying that someone is stupid because their argument is poor, isn’t. In the first case, the argument is being dismissed without consideration due to a preconception of the arguer’s intelligence. In the latter, one is making a judgement on intelligence based on the strength of their argument. There’s a difference.

Note that I’m not saying C2 is stupid - this is an illustrative example only.

If you’re saying you did it only because Charlemagne didn’t answer your post, then that’s a 2 wrongs make a right fallacy.

Only did what? All I did was reject the ad hom accusation, on the basis I’ve explained above, and acknowledge C2’s right not to engage. What’s your problem? Why are you making this into something that it isn’t?

And looking at the original post, if it’s been destroyed “time and time again”, why even bother debating it?

Because theists continue to get it wrong. Over and over. Even though the theist doctrine that atheists make their own individual morality as it suits them, is demonstrably false, theists insist on propagating it. It’s immensely frustrating, as it’s like arguing that atheists have three ears, when it’s abundantly clear that this isn’t the case.

The fact is, that atheists, on average, act just as morally as theists on average. So why continue to insist that we’re amoral, selfish opportunists? That’s the bigoted, narrow-minded doctrine that I was referring to, and I’m perfectly justified in using those adjectives.

Where Charelmagne calls you out.

Only he’s wrong in his accusation. I have justified my response to it, although I didn’t need to do so to you. I don’t understand why you’re fighting C2’s battles for him. Especially as you’ve had to set up a straw man to do so.

It’s called having fun.

Oh. Right… Problem is, it drew attention to your error. Never mind, it’s only a bit of fun!

 

[Windfish]

The fact is, that atheists, on average, act just as morally as theists on average. So why continue to insist that we’re amoral, selfish opportunists? That’s the bigoted, narrow-minded doctrine that I was referring to, and I’m perfectly justified in using those adjectives.

But that is not what we are saying. We saying atheism cannot provide a coherent account of morality, period.

 

[Pieman333272]

There’s a common misconception that saying someone is stupid or bigoted or whatever, is ad hom. It isn’t. Saying that someone’s argument is poor because they’re stupid is ad hom. Saying that someone is stupid because their argument is poor, isn’t. In the first case, the argument is being dismissed without consideration due to a preconception of the arguer’s intelligence. In the latter, one is making a judgement on intelligence based on the strength of their argument. There’s a difference.

Except when you make a naked assertion on the strength of the argument. Which you did. In fact, it’s technically a double ad hom!

Only did what? All I did was reject the ad hom accusation, on the basis I’ve explained above, and acknowledge C2’s right not to engage. What’s your problem? Why are you making this into something that it isn’t?

Never mind. I misinterpreted what you said.

Because theists continue to get it wrong. Over and over. Even though the theist doctrine that atheists make their own individual morality as it suits them, is demonstrably false, theists insist on propagating it. It’s immensely frustrating, as it’s like arguing that atheists have three ears, when it’s abundantly clear that this isn’t the case.

Well, you should be able to demonstrate that all atheists are do not apply moral relativism and nihilism in such a way as to allow them to do whatever they want.

The fact is, that atheists, on average, act just as morally as theists on average. So why continue to insist that we’re amoral, selfish opportunists? That’s the bigoted, narrow-minded doctrine that I was referring to, and I’m perfectly justified in using those adjectives.

Abortion? Mindless sex? Porn? Going on forums and hissing and spitting at anyone who disagrees? That’s “just as moral”? Seriously?!

Only he’s wrong in his accusation. I have justified my response to it, although I didn’t need to do so to you. I don’t understand why you’re fighting C2’s battles for him. Especially as you’ve had to set up a straw man to do so.

I’m not fighting for him. I’m fighting with him. In what way have I used a strawman? I’m just calling it how I see it. Look, if you want to rationalize your fallacies, you can, but that doesn’t make your argument objectively stronger.

 

[John21652]

The fact is, that atheists, on average, act just as morally as theists on average. So why continue to insist that we’re amoral, selfish opportunists? That’s the bigoted, narrow-minded doctrine that I was referring to, and I’m perfectly justified in using those adjectives.

The fact is, atheists like , Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, Tito, Kim Jong Il and others have skewed the averages very heavily in one direction. Sadly, they had no trouble in gathering to them like minded people willing to commit atrocities on a grand scale.

 

[Candide_West]

Please excuse my ignorance here but I don’t know exactly how to phrase my question, so I will simply ask it as such;

How can objective morality exist if ourselves and the physical world came into being through mere, unguided chance?*

In other words, if God does not exist, then can there be such a thing as objective morality? If so, please explain how.

Thank you.

Tim

Hi Tim,

I think to a large extent this depends on what you mean by “objective morality”. If you mean outside of any perspective then I don’t think atheism (or theism for that matter) is able to.

If by “objective morality” you are referring to moral principles that people can all agree on and which are not dependent on individual opinion. Ie “objective for humans”. Then I think you can do that in the absence of a God.*

I tend to refer to this as “practicably objective” morality. To do this you just need to start from first principles such as suffering is bad, happiness is good, we want to avoid bad things and cause good things etc. These are useful axiomatic starting points which are based on the concepts those words refer to rather than any individual opinion.*

Hence not “absolute” or truly “objective”. But objective enough to use for humans.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, Tito, Kim Jong Il

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong.

 

[wanstronian]

Except when you make a naked assertion on the strength of the argument. Which you did. In fact, it’s technically a double ad hom!

Okay, I’m not going to argue this with you. You have a right to your opinion, even though it’s wrong.

Well, you should be able to demonstrate that all atheists are do not apply moral relativism and nihilism in such a way as to allow them to do whatever they want.

You can demonstrate it yourself. Look out the window. Can you look at each and every person and identify, through their actions, whether they are an atheist?

No, I thought not.

Abortion? Mindless sex? Porn?

According to this anti-abortion website, far more christian and catholic women have abortions than non-religious.

I can’t find any statistics on casual sex and religiosity. I’d be interested to see the rationale for your statement.

According to this website (you’ll have to scroll down), it seems that the faithful access porn startlingly frequently.

But setting aside the fact that these practices are hardly the preserve of atheists, or are even practiced by a higher proportion of atheists than Christians, can you actually give me any objective ethical reason why these things are immoral?

Going on forums and hissing and spitting at anyone who disagrees? That’s “just as moral”? Seriously?!

Not sure if you’re referring to me there, but your emotive terminology is not only inaccurate, but such loaded language is usually a sign of desperation on behalf of the one who’s losing the argument (that would be you, by the way).

I’m not fighting for him. I’m fighting with him.

Except you’re not, because he went for an early bath. You’re on your own, fighting a battle that has already been lost, countless times.

In what way have I used a strawman?

The “abortion, mindless sex, porn” thing.

I’m just calling it how I see it.

Exactly - a worldview skewed by religious indoctrination.

Look, if you want to rationalize your fallacies, you can, but that doesn’t make your argument objectively stronger.

I’ve been accused of two fallacies: ad hom, and I’ve explained why the accusation was false; and the “two wrong make a right” fallacy, which you yourself have withdrawn.

So I’m not “rationalising” any fallacies, because I don’t believe I’ve committed any. Unless I’ve committed another one that you haven’t pointed out to me?

 

[wanstronian]

The fact is, atheists like , Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, Tito, Kim Jong Il and others have skewed the averages very heavily in one direction. Sadly, they had no trouble in gathering to them like minded people willing to commit atrocities on a grand scale.

Ah - so now you’re claiming that these people are so bad, that the moral average is hugely skewed towards immorality?

This is a fantastically ridiculous claim to make (think about it), but even if weren’t, it doesn’t change anything. On average, atheists behave just as morally as theists. Where that average is isn’t the issue.

 

[tonyrey]

That doesn’t mean that we can’t point to a process as the source. The process that evolved intelligence leads naturally to the “invention” of morality, logic etc.

There is no reason to believe the Source of the process that evolved intelligence lacked intelligence. In Hume’s words, the cause would not be proportioned to the effect.

And that process has been shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to be Evolution by Natural Selection. The theistic alternative - that an unexplainable, undetectable deity just granted these attributes, is incoherent, unsupported by evidence, and raises more questions that it answers.

There is no inconsistency between theism and evolution when it is realised that natural selection is an inadequate explanation of rational beings.
I

f you’re claiming that emergent properties can only apply to physical phenomena, you’re going to have to justify such a claim.

The onus is on you given that rational persons are not generally regarded as collections of non-rational particles. The disparity is too great to be ignored.

The evolutionary answer holds far more explanatory power, and is supported by plentiful evidence.

Please refer to my previous answer. The value of life is more consistent with its creation by God than by purposeless processes.

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

We’re imperfect individuals who regularly put our own interests ahead of the common good. That doesn’t mean that we’re incapable of recognising the difference.

To recognise the common good is not necessarily to accept it as an obligation.

The rational basis is that a shared morality allows us to co-exist - and therefore flourish - as a species.

Many people are not concerned about the species - or even their own family. What reason is there to regard selfish individuals as misguided?

“to do what we’re convinced is right?” Then this is hardly objective morality, is it - it’s the subjective conviction of individuals.

The correspondence between their beliefs and actions is objective.

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

And your objective rationale for asserting the immense value of existence is?

An atheist, Ernest Nagel, pointed out that it is a source of opportunities. I add:- for development, creativity, enjoyment and fulfilment.

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

You have no evidence of a Creator, let alone one who is moral in nature.

My belief is reasonable because it is based on the success of science which demonstrates that the power of reason is far superior to the haphazard meanderings of blind processes. To attempt to derive persons from particles is a forlorn enterprise.

The god of the bible is irrefutably immoral by modern standards…

The bloodthirsty God of the Old Testament is not the loving Father of the New Testament. The pure monotheism and moral code of the primitive Jews contrasted sharply with the polytheism of other tribes. Although primitive they had remarkable insight into the nature of God as He Who Is…
A

nimals have demonstrated rationality and morality also. This is well-documented.

Then why aren’t they regarded as morally responsible for what they do?

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.

I agree with your criteria for morality - but those criteria are very broad and can in no way be described as objective. Do you eat meat?

I happen to be a vegetarian but not on moral grounds - apart from the unnecessary cruelty meted out to animals.

If so, that harms others - it harms animals. You might believe that animals are there for the benefit of humans (I’m not saying that this is the case, but it might be). Others would disagree. Bang goes the objectivity - your criteria are open to interpretation.

We obviously benefit from animals but that fact does not exclude their intrinsic value or their right to be treated with compassion. Man is not the measure of all things. Life is precious regardless of our existence.

This is exactly why morality is demonstrably a subjective phenomenon (or objective in terms of mass agreement - but this is dependent on culture, demographics and a whole range of other criteria).

Variations in moral codes don’t rule out fundamental moral principles which are all based on respect for, and appreciation of, the value of life.

And the criteria you have set out are demonstrably not followed by any of the Abrahamic gods, so what objective source have your criteria come from? Well, as it happens, the criteria you have set out are pretty much exactly what one would expect from a species that has evolved to live in social harmony. So this seems a far more likely explanation than “God did it.”

The teaching of Jesus is the only rational basis for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity in particular. The notion that we are accidental freaks of nature is not a valid substitute.

So again I ask - where are your criteria documented, and what is your rationale for believing that this source is objective, immutable and consistent?

The teaching of Jesus whose moral principles and values are the foundation of the UDHR and accepted by every civilised person throughout the world.

 

[Pieman333272]

You can demonstrate it yourself. Look out the window. Can you look at each and every person and identify, through their actions, whether they are an atheist?

No, I thought not.

Doesn’t matter. That is not how you judge one’s morals or views based on their morals.

According to this anti-abortion website, far more christian and catholic women have abortions than non-religious.

What is the CONCENTRATION of atheist to Catholic women who have abortions? If more catholic women do it but of a lower concentration than atheist women, your argument is bunk. Also, atheists may not have abortions because they use birth control to begin with. Finally, Catholics who get an abortion are no longer Catholic and are disobeying their religion to begin with. Atheists are disobeying nothing.

I can’t find any statistics on casual sex and religiosity. I’d be interested to see the rationale for your statement.

From personal conversation, I’ve noticed that atheists care far less about the institution of marriage than do Christians.

According to this website (you’ll have to scroll down), it seems that the faithful access porn startlingly frequently.

Again, that is denying their moral code. Also, that is ignoring the psychological aspects of porn and doesn’t talk about how many atheists see porn.

But setting aside the fact that these practices are hardly the preserve of atheists, or are even practiced by a higher proportion of atheists than Christians, can you actually give me any objective ethical reason why these things are immoral?

I can but it’s off-topic. Start a thread if you’re interested.

Not sure if you’re referring to me there, but your emotive terminology is not only inaccurate, but such loaded language is usually a sign of desperation on behalf of the one who’s losing the argument (that would be you, by the way).

It’s not in reference to you but the general archetype of atheists I’ve observed on online forums - they just start hissing and spitting out against theists, just being flat out jerks. There are, for the better, some big exceptions, but I’ve noticed this far more than substantiated argument.

Exactly - a worldview skewed by religious indoctrination.

Exactly - a worldview filled with hatred and bigotry towards those who disagree.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

pieman

Finally, Catholics who get an abortion are no longer Catholic and are disobeying their religion to begin with. Atheists are disobeying nothing.

Who is more likely to be an abortionist? A Catholic or an atheist?

 

[Pieman333272]

pieman

Finally, Catholics who get an abortion are no longer Catholic and are disobeying their religion to begin with. Atheists are disobeying nothing.

Who is more likely to be an abortionist? A Catholic or an atheist?

I would imagine the latter.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

pieman

**I would imagine the latter. **

So would I … the reason being that the atheist is on his own to decide whether abortion is moral or immoral. The Catholic has the Fifth Commandment to go on, never mind the teachings of the Church.

For the same reason, I would take it to be a reasonable assumption that the percent (as opposed to the absolute number) of abortions would be substantially higher among women with no religious preference than for women who declare a religious preference. Such women would also seem to have no particular reverence for the Fifth Commandment and certainly belong to no institution that opposes abortion on moral grounds. If anything, they are more likely to be affiliated with institutions that advocate abortion as a woman’s right.