Why there is no such thing as objective morality

[gills]

New to the forums; first post. Here’s my question, or rather questions, related to morality:

If we’re to assume that an objective morality does, in fact, exist, are we not also to assume that immoral acts will undeniably yield repercussions?—and that leading a moral life will, in turn, yield desirable results?

As this does not appear to be a reality, I am puzzled by theistic belief in objective morality. In a nutshell, how do Christians account for “bad” things happening to “good” people and vice versa? Is it merely by the notion of an afterlife (i.e. punishment/rewards are issued post-death) or am I missing something?

Thanks in advance.

 

[johnnycatholic]

The occurrance of bad things happening to good people is not an indication that there is no objective morality. It could be that when a bad thing happens to a good person his reaction to the bad thing (being hopefully a good reaction) will yield:

a) A good moral example of how to deal with adversity

b) More goodness, i.e. the bad occurrance will yield a goodness that could not have happened without the existence of the bad (only God can cause this). An example of this goodness could be an expiation of the punishment or justice do to some sin the person committed.

The concept of moral goodness in christianity in no way implies that if you lead a good life nothing bad will happen to you. The exact opposite is true at least as far as life in this world is concerned. In catholicism bad things can happen to you to lessen your time in purgatory or to drive you back to the lord. A person seeking to lead a moral life in christianity does not do it for positive results, he does it for love of God, it has to be totally selfless. Nevertheless, there are punishments and rewards in the afterlife, Justice must be served.

 

[dbg]

According to your own philosophical tradition, a man is always bound to follow his conscience. So, hypothetically, if a man were sincerely convinced that there is no God, he ought not believe God exists and in fact ought believe that it doesn’t exist.

Furthermore, hypothetically, if a man were sincerely convinced that God ought not be loved, that man ought not love it. But if God as your philosophical tradition says is absolute power and absolute goodness and absolute truth and these are in res all one and the same thing, then you would be acknowledging that in this situation the man being so would be obliged, subjectively, by conscience, to not love absolute goodness. And in the former situation above, the man would be likewise obliged to not believe in the existence of absolute truth.

There is a way to avoid these contradictions and that is to reject the notion of objective morality. The fact that Catholic philosophy distinguishes between what one is subjectively obliged (or not obliged) to do and what one is objectively obliged (or not obliged) to do causes a fundamental problem that cannot be repaired by the rejection of monotheism. Here’s the problem. According to your own philosophy, if one is subjectively convinced, sincerely and not in a self-deceiving kind of way, that one ought to burn a heretic (and let’s assume for the sake of argument that this is objectively speaking always morally forbidden), then one has a subjective obligation to do so. But how can one in any sense be obliged to do that which is “objectively” forbidden or (and let’s assume that this is the case) intrinsically perverse? If burning a heretic doesn’t qualify, substitute that with torturing an innocent child.

This is why I reject the notion of any objective morality. Morality is real, but it is an expression of who you are and what is moral or how moral it is is just determined by how truly it expresses your true self – and since what one subjectively believes, thinks and feels is part of one’s true self at any given time (though not the entirety of what define’s one’s true self), there is no conflict in my proposal between “objective” and “subjective” obligations. We ought ask not whether something conforms to some external or object-based standard, but simply whether it is an instance of someone’s self-expression, personal growth and evolution.

I personally reject also the notion of “God”, but this post was primarily about the philosophical problems the notion of “objective obligation” versus “subjective obligation” present.

 

[davidv]

According to your own philosophical tradition, a man is always bound to follow his conscience. So, hypothetically, if a man were sincerely convinced that there is no God, he ought not believe God exists and in fact ought believe that it doesn’t exist.
{snip}.

Where is this unconditional “follow his conscience” philosophy defined. It is not what the Church teaching is regarding conscience. See CCC articles 1776 and following.

 

[dbg]

Where is this unconditional “follow his conscience” philosophy defined. It is not what the Church teaching is regarding conscience. See CCC articles 1776 and following.

It’s what Catholic theologians and philosophers teach. In the CCC it also says that the man who doesn’t follow his conscience “condemns” himself. There are no exceptions.

I hope other people who are familiar with this issue respond. I hope this thread does not get sidetracked.

 

[bogeydogg]

According to your own philosophical tradition, a man is always bound to follow his conscience. So, hypothetically, if a man were sincerely convinced that there is no God, he ought not believe God exists and in fact ought believe that it doesn’t exist.

No in fact we are not admonished to follow our conscience we are told to see if what we believes conforms to Church Teaching (Catholic) or to the clear mandate of Scripture be that explicitly or implicitly (Reformed)

Furthermore, hypothetically, if a man were sincerely convinced that God ought not be loved, that man ought not love it. But if God as your philosophical tradition says is absolute power and absolute goodness and absolute truth and these are in res all one and the same thing, then you would be acknowledging that in this situation the man being so would be obliged, subjectively, by conscience, to not love absolute goodness. And in the former situation above, the man would be likewise obliged to not believe in the existence of absolute truth.

No because then the man’s subjective feeling would be out of conformity with either Church teaching or Scripture, so no, no one could say that he is morally obligated to not love God or to believe in truth because to do so violates clear teaching of the Church and Scripture.

There is a way to avoid these contradictions and that is to reject the notion of objective morality. The fact that Catholic philosophy distinguishes between what one is subjectively obliged (or not obliged) to do and what one is objectively obliged (or not obliged) to do causes a fundamental problem that cannot be repaired by the rejection of monotheism. Here’s the problem. According to your own philosophy, if one is subjectively convinced, sincerely and not in a self-deceiving kind of way, that one ought to burn a heretic (and let’s assume for the sake of argument that this is objectively speaking always morally forbidden), then one has a subjective obligation to do so. But how can one in any sense be obliged to do that which is “objectively” forbidden or (and let’s assume that this is the case) intrinsically perverse? If burning a heretic doesn’t qualify, substitute that with torturing an innocent child.

So then do you agree that torturing children is objectively, morally perverse? The reason I ask is because if you reject objective morality, then I am having a difficult time understanding how you can abject to any behavior because if morality is a question of personal growth, then a man could reasonably say that torturing children is a part of his personal growth and you would have no standard whatsoever to object to his behavior. Sure you could say social mores etc. but even that falls apart because, apart from objective morality, then social mores are little more than the personal expression of herd morality and no more valid because they are of the group than the opinion of the one.

This is why I reject the notion of any objective morality. Morality is real, but it is an expression of who you are and what is moral or how moral it is is just determined by how truly it expresses your true self – and since what one subjectively believes, thinks and feels is part of one’s true self at any given time (though not the entirety of what define’s one’s true self), there is no conflict in my proposal between “objective” and “subjective” obligations. We ought ask not whether something conforms to some external or object-based standard, but simply whether it is an instance of someone’s self-expression, personal growth and evolution.

We agree that there is a thing called morality, of course the difference is that you assert it exists but not in any objective sense. So what I wonder is how you could possibly prove that it exists objectively but does not objectively exist?

Moving on…

By your standard then, Hitler could have been justified in the murder of millions of people if those crimes were an expression of who he was and whether it was moral or how moral it was would be determined by how truly it expressed his true self. Well what if in his true self he was a monster? Could we judge his crimes to be criminal? What about Stalin? What about the treatment of the Native Americans at the hands of the US Government? The US Government really believed that they were lesser people and in the way so there was no harm in relocating them and if they got slaughtered in the process, no big deal… right? Who’s to say? Could we not argue the same thing about slavery in the south? Or Jim Crow?

The reason we must always argue for objective morality is that without it society could not function. We also would have no way of determining whether or not a society had run amok. Apart from objective morality everything would be permissible and no one would be able to say that any behavior was objectively wrong.

I personally reject also the notion of “God”, but this post was primarily about the philosophical problems the notion of “objective obligation” versus “subjective obligation” present.

And I didn’t mention God one time, I simply corrected you misunderstanding of the Church’s teaching on morality and what it’s objective standard is.

 

[bogeydogg]

It’s what Catholic theologians and philosophers teach. In the CCC it also says that the man who doesn’t follow his conscience “condemns” himself. There are no exceptions.

I hope other people who are familiar with this issue respond. I hope this thread does not get sidetracked.

Also the Church teaches that a man is only condemned if in violating his conscience he also is violating what he knows to be the clear edicts of God. That is mortal sin. However the Bible and the Church both teach that the conscience can be seared and is not always to be trusted.

So don’t narrow the definitions of Church Teaching by taking them out of context to say what you want them to mean in order to support your own argument.

 

[dbg]

Also the Church teaches that a man is only condemned if in violating his conscience he also is violating what he knows to be the clear edicts of God. That is mortal sin. However the Bible and the Church both teach that the conscience can be seared and is not always to be trusted.

So don’t narrow the definitions of Church Teaching by taking them out of context to say what you want them to mean in order to support your own argument.

This thread is getting sidetracked. Again, I hope those who understand Catholic philosophy respond (I do have familiarity with it as I used to be Catholic and studied Catholic philosophy and theology on the graduate level). Here is what the CCC says about one’s obligation when one has an erroneous conscience (no exceptions or other qualifications are made; it is only noted that a man with an erroneous conscience may be culpable for his ignorance and the results of his ignorance if the man did not, follow his conscience, that is, in properly forming his conscience … so someone who deliberately doesn’t explore whether something is unethical would in that deliberate act be sinning and the results of that sin would be culpable unto him (just as if somewhere deliberately became drunk, what he does when drunk would be culpable unto him):

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

“always” last time I checked means always, no exceptions.

 

[davidv]

This thread is getting sidetracked. Again, I hope those who understand Catholic philosophy respond (I do have familiarity with it as I used to be Catholic and studied Catholic philosophy and theology on the graduate level). Here is what the CCC says about one’s obligation when one has an erroneous conscience (no exceptions or other qualifications are made; it is only noted that a man with an erroneous conscience may be culpable for his ignorance and the results of his ignorance if the man did not, follow his conscience, that is, in properly forming his conscience … so someone who deliberately doesn’t explore whether something is unethical would in that deliberate act be sinning and the results of that sin would be culpable unto him (just as if somewhere deliberately became drunk, what he does when drunk would be culpable unto him):

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

When you began this thread with a false premise regarding Church teaching, any conclusions based on that premise are invalid. So until we resolve the premise there is no point in continuing, no matter how ignorant I may, or not be, of “Catholic philosophy”.

 

[mercygate]

This thread is getting sidetracked. Again, I hope those who understand Catholic philosophy respond (I do have familiarity with it as I used to be Catholic and studied Catholic philosophy and theology on the graduate level). Here is what the CCC says about one’s obligation when one has an erroneous conscience (no exceptions or other qualifications are made; it is only noted that a man with an erroneous conscience may be culpable for his ignorance and the results of his ignorance if the man did not, follow his conscience, that is, in properly forming his conscience … so someone who deliberately doesn’t explore whether something is unethical would in that deliberate act be sinning and the results of that sin would be culpable unto him (just as if somewhere deliberately became drunk, what he does when drunk would be culpable unto him):

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

“always” last time I checked means always, no exceptions.

Nature itself provides a discernible law that sets out certain human moral truths accessible to the human intellect even without divine revelation.

These universal moral principles are shared widely across many cultures. They form the foundation of “conscience.”

For a person to claim the right of “conscience” whilst ignoring the means by which his conscience might be properly formed – by defining “conscience” as “what I believe” when that believe is based on NOTHING but personal preference, and does not even rise to the level of respectable opinion, is culpable ignorance. It is not “conscience” at all.

In fact, the very word “conscience” means “knowing-with.” I.e., knowing “with” right reason as applied to actions in the moral plane.

 

[dbg]

So then do you agree that torturing children is objectively, morally perverse?

No, I say rather that it is morally defective, not “objectively” but subjectively for each person. Even if someone were to sincerely believe it was the right thing to do, it would still be morally defective for them because then while that person would be being true to that particular belief of his, he wouldn’t be being true to other beliefs of his or to his person as a whole. Everyone believes it is good to love. Some may believe it is good to hate one’s enemies. Those that then hate so while being true that particular belief of theirs wouldn’t be being true to their belief that it is good to love. Because their belief system is not fully consistent or coherent, they can commit acts which are morally defective even when acting according to their conscience.

The reason I ask is because if you reject objective morality, then I am having a difficult time understanding how you can abject to any behavior because if morality is a question of personal growth, then a man could reasonably say that torturing children is a part of his personal growth and you would have no standard whatsoever to object to his behavior.

Do you have any studies that show that torturing children is conducive to personal growth? I think you are being silly. Either it is conducive or it is not. Whether it is or not, is not a moral question, but a factual one.

We agree that there is a thing called morality, of course the difference is that you assert it exists but not in any objective sense. So what I wonder is how you could possibly prove that it exists objectively but does not objectively exist?

I never said it exists objectively. I said it exists subjectively. Something can be true in two ways – objectively, that is true without regard to the personal state of being of subjects (persons); or subjectively, that is true in a way that is grounded in the personal state of being of subjects (persons). Take color for example. Some say that color is a property that inheres in an object, independent of it being experienced by a subject. Others may say that color is a qualia (an immediate subjective experience) but does not have a reality as such outside of it (though it may be causally related to external things like light and chemical structure and so forth). In the case of morality what I am saying is that morality is nothing more nor less than the expression of one’s self. To be moral means to express one’s self and vice versa. Some express their selve’s better than others and some know their selves’ better than others and so are better able to express themselves if they so choose to.

By your standard then, Hitler could have been justified in the murder of millions of people if those crimes were an expression of who he was and whether it was moral or how moral it was would be determined by how truly it expressed his true self. Well what if in his true self he was a monster?

This coming from the religion that says everyone is “created in the image of God.” I guess Hitler is an exception to that and his true self doesn’t include “the image of God.” As for me, I say that Hitler like any other person, has an incommensurate (relative to anything that is not a person) value and fully and truly expressing that value would be incompatible with any murder he may have committed or been otherwise complicit in.

If someone believes in love – and everyone does – but chooses to hate some enemies that is similar to how someone chooses to scratch an itch even though he believes it is not healthy and in fact counterproductive to do so (let’s assume it is in this case). Sometimes we do things that are irrational, that do not quite conform to our own beliefs about ourselves, let alone our selves, themselves.

Could we judge his crimes to be criminal?

“Crime” is a social concept. If you mean could we judge his actions to be morally defective – sure. Hitler was an artist and so had a love for beauty. Well, murder would not be consistent with beauty which he himself loves – so any murder or rape or what have you he may have been complicit in would not be expressing his own love for beauty.

 

[tomarin]

This coming from the religion that says everyone is “created in the image of God.” I guess Hitler is an exception to that and his true self doesn’t include “the image of God.” As for me, I say that Hitler like any other person, has an incommensurate (relative to anything that is not a person) value and fully and truly expressing that value would be incompatible with any murder he may have committed or been otherwise complicit in.

no, this is coming from a belief system that affirms the existence of evil and defines it as the rejection of God’s will (which is what Hitler’s behavior entailed). by contrast moral relativism undermines one’s ability to combat, or even recognize evil by dissolving categories of good and evil.

it’s the abundant existence of evil in the world that makes moral relativism problematic, not the other way 'round.

 

[bogeydogg]

No, I say rather that it is morally defective, not “objectively” but subjectively for each person. Even if someone were to sincerely believe it was the right thing to do, it would still be morally defective for them because then while that person would be being true to that particular belief of his, he wouldn’t be being true to other beliefs of his or to his person as a whole.

No. You are defining objective morality in affirming that it is defective to torture children. You say it is and against ‘other beliefs’ within that person, and these other beliefs would then necessarily conform to a standard, and that standard would then be objective by its very nature.

Also, if you agree that it is immoral to torture children, and you expect that other should (a moral obligation) not torture children, then you are by inescapable logic affirming that this idea that we should not torture children is universal and therefore objective. There is no way around it.

Everyone believes it is good to love. Some may believe it is good to hate one’s enemies. Those that then hate so while being true that particular belief of theirs wouldn’t be being true to their belief that it is good to love. Because their belief system is not fully consistent or coherent, they can commit acts which are morally defective even when acting according to their conscience.

How do you know everyone believes it is good to love? How do you know that those who don’t believe in love would be inconsistent or incoherent? Unless of course you believe that there is some sort of objective moral obligation to believe in love and those who don’t are deviant against this standard in some way.

Do you have any studies that show that torturing children is conducive to personal growth? I think you are being silly. Either it is conducive or it is not. Whether it is or not, is not a moral question, but a factual one.

Sociopathic killers who have no conscience (ie a seared conscience) find it very personally fulfilling to torture and kill children, for example John Wayne Gacy. If there is no standard to which we all should expect him to conform then how do we know he was wrong?

I never said it exists objectively. I said it exists subjectively. Something can be true in two ways – objectively, that is true without regard to the personal state of being of subjects (persons); or subjectively, that is true in a way that is grounded in the personal state of being of subjects (persons). Take color for example. Some say that color is a property that inheres in an object, independent of it being experienced by a subject. Others may say that color is a qualia (an immediate subjective experience) but does not have a reality as such outside of it (though it may be causally related to external things like light and chemical structure and so forth). In the case of morality what I am saying is that morality is nothing more nor less than the expression of one’s self. To be moral means to express one’s self and vice versa. Some express their selve’s better than others and some know their selves’ better than others and so are better able to express themselves if they so choose to.

The thing with color is that it is either intrinsically a part of the object or it is only a subjective experience, but it cannot be both. It is a rational absurdity to assert otherwise. Something cannot be ‘a’ and not ‘a’ at the same time and in the same way. It’s impossible.

Cont…

 

[bogeydogg]

cont.

This coming from the religion that says everyone is “created in the image of God.” I guess Hitler is an exception to that and his true self doesn’t include “the image of God.” As for me, I say that Hitler like any other person, has an incommensurate (relative to anything that is not a person) value and fully and truly expressing that value would be incompatible with any murder he may have committed or been otherwise complicit in.

Well fortunately I don’t believe that “being made in the image of God” makes everyone good (you see I am a protestant) just think it makes everyone have value. Of course you seem to believe this as well, but you have no basis for why humanity should be more valuable than that which is not human, except of course that it is your opinion. But if it is only your opinion, why should anyone care?

If someone believes in love – and everyone does – but chooses to hate some enemies that is similar to how someone chooses to scratch an itch even though he believes it is not healthy and in fact counterproductive to do so (let’s assume it is in this case). Sometimes we do things that are irrational, that do not quite conform to our own beliefs about ourselves, let alone our selves, themselves.

Actually I think people do that to which they are most inclined. Which of course also explains why some people can do terribly immoral things and yet not feel the slightest twinge of guilt because the conscience can be deceived or even silenced. However, even people who are hurting themselves, say emotionally unwell people who cut themselves in order to cope, are doing so because they want to and not because they are intentionally violating some inner sense of self love. Which of course you have not given us reason to believe that such a sense exists.

“Crime” is a social concept. If you mean could we judge his actions to be morally defective – sure. Hitler was an artist and so had a love for beauty. Well, murder would not be consistent with beauty which he himself loves – so any murder or rape or what have you he may have been complicit in would not be expressing his own love for beauty.

Yes but you seem to agree that Hitler was wrong, but if morality is completely subjective, then there is no reason why what society thinks or you think or I think is right concerning the things he did. But you cannot say that the Nazis were intentionally violating their consciences in doing what they did because they took pictures of their handiwork as trophies of their efficiency. It is hard to believe that a man who take snapshots of the hanged bodies of children for a keepsake was doing so because he felt he had done wrong.

 

[bogeydogg]

This thread is getting sidetracked. Again, I hope those who understand Catholic philosophy respond (I do have familiarity with it as I used to be Catholic and studied Catholic philosophy and theology on the graduate level). Here is what the CCC says about one’s obligation when one has an erroneous conscience (no exceptions or other qualifications are made; it is only noted that a man with an erroneous conscience may be culpable for his ignorance and the results of his ignorance if the man did not, follow his conscience, that is, in properly forming his conscience … so someone who deliberately doesn’t explore whether something is unethical would in that deliberate act be sinning and the results of that sin would be culpable unto him (just as if somewhere deliberately became drunk, what he does when drunk would be culpable unto him):

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

“always” last time I checked means always, no exceptions.

You cannot claim that we are sidetracking you just because we disagree with you initial premise.

You paragraph from the CCC is taken out of context because there is much in the CCC which disagrees with your premise and therefore you have a contextual error.

Also, the CCC says that a man must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. Which means that a man is to obey his conscience when its judgment is informed properly. Then it even clarifies this by saying, “Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” In other words, the conscience is capable of being deceived and not always to be followed which is why the CCC adds the caveat that the judgment must be certain.

 

[mlchance]

According to your own philosophical tradition, a man is always bound to follow his conscience.
…
This is why I reject the notion of any objective morality.

That’s an awfully bold conclusion to based on an incomplete – and therefore flawed – statement about the Church’s teaching regarding conscience.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[fhansen]

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

“always” last time I checked means always, no exceptions.

Read more of the CCC on the topic of conscience.
The point of Catholic teaching on conscience reflects her position on mankind in general and our need for conversion or change of heart. Gods’ purpose is to mold us into beings who will freely and consciously choose the right thing but we’re not born that was. So, even though it’s said that God has written the laws in our minds and on our hearts, describing the conscience, at the same time this statement is derived from a prophecy from Jeremiah about what God, knowing that our wills are weakened by the fall and not fully obedient to His internal laws, will do through the New Covenant.

**10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."
HEBREWS 8:10-12]

**

 

[Newbie2]

It’s what Catholic theologians and philosophers teach. In the CCC it also says that the man who doesn’t follow his conscience “condemns” himself. There are no exceptions.

I hope other people who are familiar with this issue respond. I hope this thread does not get sidetracked.

That’s an awfully bold conclusion to based on an incomplete – and therefore flawed – statement about the Church’s teaching regarding conscience.

– Mark L. Chance.

Mark’s right. One’s conscience must be “well formed” in order to be “follow-able”.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It’s what Catholic theologians and philosophers teach. In the CCC it also says that the man who doesn’t follow his conscience “condemns” himself. There are no exceptions.

I hope other people who are familiar with this issue respond. I hope this thread does not get sidetracked.

I don’t know as you are going to be happy. Oddily enough, there is a group here who don’t believe in following one’s own conscience. They believe, contrary to many statements of both popes and theolgians that the Magisterium is conscious and they have only to align themselves with it to be correctly formed in conscious. They totally reject that anyone must in the end live by their own conscience. It does not good to quote directly from the CCC or the popes or anything for that matter. They simply won’t agree.

 

[annem]

Spirit Meadow:

Oddily enough, there is a group here who don’t believe in following one’s own conscience.

Dear Spirit Meadow, I believe everyone would agree you should follow your own conscience, so long as you are properly formed as a devout Catholic.

After all Hitler followed his own conscience but ignored the truths of the church. . An extreme example but you see what I mean. We are all so weak, and it is so easy to think we are right about what we want to do.

May God bless you, Annem