Why there is no such thing as objective morality

[dbg]

I’m consolidating something from another thread into this one to avoid sidetracking the other thread started by another member. Response to john from that other thread:

I am not anti-realist when it comes to whether or not there are propositions which correspond with the way the world in fact is. But some propositions may correspond to the way the world in fact is, not in an absolute non-relative way, but in a relative yet still real way. For example the proposition: “The door is to the left” can only be “true” relative to something else – it can be true relative to a window, to a person etc. Likewise for the proposition “Compassion is more beautiful than patience” – it may be really true relative to one person but not true – really – relative to another. So while I am a moral relativist in that sense, I am NOT a moral anti-realist. Moral values are real – they do exist – but they are GROUNDED ultimately within each individual subject and are grounded only in what is found desirable – since a “value” is by definition something which is found desirable.

 

[bogeydogg]

I’m consolidating something from another thread into this one to avoid sidetracking the other thread started by another member. Response to john from that other thread:

I am not anti-realist when it comes to whether or not there are propositions which correspond with the way the world in fact is. But some propositions may correspond to the way the world in fact is, not in an absolute non-relative way, but in a relative yet still real way. For example the proposition: “The door is to the left” can only be “true” relative to something else – it can be true relative to a window, to a person etc. Likewise for the proposition “Compassion is more beautiful than patience” – it may be really true relative to one person but not true – really – relative to another. So while I am a moral relativist in that sense, I am NOT a moral anti-realist. Moral values are real – they do exist – but they are GROUNDED ultimately within each individual subject and are grounded only in what is found desirable – since a “value” is by definition something which is found desirable.

But you also assert that there are real values which apply to all through a sense of ought-ness, so they cannot be grounded only in the individual but must objectively exist apart from the individuals which experience this ought-ness subjectively.

 

[packermann]

I’m consolidating something from another thread into this one to avoid sidetracking the other thread started by another member. Response to john from that other thread:

I am not anti-realist when it comes to whether or not there are propositions which correspond with the way the world in fact is. But some propositions may correspond to the way the world in fact is, not in an absolute non-relative way, but in a relative yet still real way. For example the proposition: “The door is to the left” can only be “true” relative to something else – it can be true relative to a window, to a person etc. Likewise for the proposition “Compassion is more beautiful than patience” – it may be really true relative to one person but not true – really – relative to another. So while I am a moral relativist in that sense, I am NOT a moral anti-realist. Moral values are real – they do exist – but they are GROUNDED ultimately within each individual subject and are grounded only in what is found desirable – since a “value” is by definition something which is found desirable.

I want to clarify something here. Although there are some extreme absolutists who see everything as absolute, most absolutists only beieve that there are SOME things are absolute. An absolutist can still believe that there are things that are relative but they are relative to an absolute value.

Take for example Exodus 1. Pharoah commanded the midwives to kill the Jewish male infants as soon as the were born. The midwives did not do that. When the Pharoah asked why they did not, the midwives lied. The Bible said that this “pleased the Lord”. So they lie pleased God, even though they lied. Although not lying is an absolute value, there is a greater absolute value of human life. So one can lie in order to save somone’s life. A lesser absolute value can be violated in order to preserve a greater absolute value.

Another example is Jesus. Jesus violated the Sabbath by healing on the Sabbath. The Pharisees condemned Jesus for violating the Sabbath. But Jesus taught that doing good, such as healing someone, is more important than keeping the Sabbath. Again, the lesser absolute of keeping the Sabbath can be put aside in order do good for someone even on the Sabbath.

So you see, Christianity teaches BOTH absolutism AND relativism. A lower absolute value can be put aside if it is relative to a higher absolute value. So it is not enough to give examples of where relativism can be used. We Catholics can agree with you on this. Instead, you need to prove that relativism must be used in EVERY situation. And here you cannot do without contradicting yourself - for in saying that relativism must be used in EVERY situation is itself an absolute statement. So you would have at least one situation where relativism is not applied.

 

[dbg]

I want to clarify something here. Although there are some extreme absolutists who see everything as absolute, most absolutists only beieve that there are SOME things are absolute. An absolutist can still believe that there are things that are relative but they are relative to an absolute value.

Take for example Exodus 1. Pharoah commanded the midwives to kill the Jewish male infants as soon as the were born. The midwives did not do that. When the Pharoah asked why they did not, the midwives lied. The Bible said that this “pleased the Lord”. So they lie pleased God, even though they lied. Although not lying is an absolute value, there is a greater absolute value of human life. So one can lie in order to save somone’s life. A lesser absolute value can be violated in order to preserve a greater absolute value.

Another example is Jesus. Jesus violated the Sabbath by healing on the Sabbath. The Pharisees condemned Jesus for violating the Sabbath. But Jesus taught that doing good, such as healing someone, is more important than keeping the Sabbath. Again, the lesser absolute of keeping the Sabbath can be put aside in order do good for someone even on the Sabbath.

So you see, Christianity teaches BOTH absolutism AND relativism. A lower absolute value can be put aside if it is relative to a higher absolute value. So it is not enough to give examples of where relativism can be used. We Catholics can agree with you on this. Instead, you need to prove that relativism must be used in EVERY situation. And here you cannot do without contradicting yourself - for in saying that relativism must be used in EVERY situation is itself an absolute statement. So you would have at least one situation where relativism is not applied.

OK so let me try and get this all straight.

Say there are 2 people about to drown, one belongs to one family, one to another. The parents of one want to save their own child over the other (let’s suppose only one can be saved for some reason, no matter what barring a divine miracle) and the parents of the other want to save their own over the other. Which couple is right? If you are morally absolutist or objectivist in this situation, you would have to say that they are either both wrong or one is wrong – but both couldn’t be right. But since I am morally relativist and subjectivist – I can say that both couples are right relative to their own values and deeply held desires.

What say ye?

 

[fhansen]

OK so let me try and get this all straight.

Say there are 2 people about to drown, one belongs to one family, one to another. The parents of one want to save their own child over the other (let’s suppose only one can be saved for some reason, no matter what barring a divine miracle) and the parents of the other want to save their own over the other. Which couple is right? If you are morally absolutist or objectivist in this situation, you would have to say that they are either both wrong or one is wrong – but both couldn’t be right. But since I am morally relativist and subjectivist – I can say that both couples are right relative to their own values and deeply held desires.

What say ye?

It’s universally, objectively right to want to save a life so both are right in that sense, even if they each wanted to save the other’s child instead of their own. It’s also true that the life of each child has equal value, so the choice to save either one is also right if saving only one is the sole option.

 

[dbg]

It’s universally, objectively right to want to save a life so both are right in that sense, even if they each wanted to save the other’s child instead of their own. It’s also true that the life of each child has equal value, so the choice to save either one is also right if saving only one is the sole option.

ok, so in this situation, there’s not one right answer – there’s two equally right choices, on your view. Then why couldn’t there be two or more equally right choices in other cases? Maybe for example, abortion is right for one woman but adoption is right for another and keeping the child is right for yet another?

 

[packermann]

ok, so in this situation, there’s not one right answer – there’s two equally right choices, on your view. Then why couldn’t there be two or more equally right choices in other cases? Maybe for example, abortion is right for one woman but adoption is right for another and keeping the child is right for yet another?

In your first scenario, two children are in peril and only one can be saved, and the parents chooses their child over the other, and it was rightly expressed that it was OK for the parents to save their own child IF they could not save both.

From that you then jump to this abortion scenario, but the problem is this was a huge jump. In your first situation, you clearly spelled out that BOTH children had their lives in jeopardy, and only one can be saved. In your abortion scenario, only one life seems to be in jeopardy - that is the unborn child’s.

So either you have to change your first scenario or the second so that their comparison is legitimate. Let’s change the first one. Suppose both children were not in jeopardy. Suppose their child would experience merely discomfort, but would not die. If that is the case, it would then be wrong to allow the other child to die simply because their child would have to suffer some discomfort. Or instead, lets say the it was possible to save both children. In that case, it would be wrong for the parents not to save both children.

Or instead of changing the first scenario, we can change the abortion scenario. Just as in the first scenario, suppose there were two lives in jeopardy. Suppose not only the unborn child’s life, but the life of the mother as well. Suppose the mother would die without the abortion. Then I can be more lenient on alllowing this. Actually, I am not sure I would actually call that an abortion. The doctors would do an early Caesarian section, but once the baby comes out they would then do all they can to save the unborn child, no matter how unlikely the child can be saved. But the intention is not to kill the unborn child.

But unless it is to save another’s life, such as the mother’s, I would condemn this procedure. If the mother kills her unborn child just because she does not want to go through a certain amount of difficulty and discomfort, then she has commited a grave evil.

I have this question for you. Suppose the child is born already. Being a relativist, you would deny absolutes. So can you describe a situation where a mother killing her already-born child would be the right thing to do?

 

[dbg]

I have this question for you. Suppose the child is born already. Being a relativist, you would deny absolutes. So can you describe a situation where a mother killing her already-born child would be the right thing to do?

I would never do such a thing because it would be contrary to my values but I can imagine someone having a coherent set of values where it would not be wrong relative to their values. To give you a fictional example, if you’ve seen the movie Kingdom of Heaven, a mother who loves her son dearly, nevertheless engages in a mercy killing after she learns that he too has leprosy. Again I wouldn’t do such a thing but if she was true to her own values and true fully, she would have done no wrong – for there is no greater good that man can attain than to be true to himself. That would seem self-evident.

 

[ToddM]

I would never do such a thing because it would be contrary to my values but I can imagine someone having a coherent set of values where it would not be wrong relative to their values. To give you a fictional example, if you’ve seen the movie Kingdom of Heaven, a mother who loves her son dearly, nevertheless engages in a mercy killing after she learns that he too has leprosy. Again I wouldn’t do such a thing but if she was **true **to her own values and **true **fully, she would have done no wrong – for there is no greater good that man can attain than to be **true **to himself. That would seem self-evident.

Can this mean anything? If so, how?

 

[fhansen]

ok, so in this situation, there’s not one right answer – there’s two equally right choices, on your view. Then why couldn’t there be two or more equally right choices in other cases? Maybe for example, abortion is right for one woman but adoption is right for another and keeping the child is right for yet another?

There are a couple of issues here. If the fetus is not human life, then it makes no difference what anyone does with it since there’s no moral issue involved. If it is human life then you have the same dilemma you’d have if the example involved various opinions about, say, the killing of one of your loved ones. On the other hand, if a person believes that murder is OK, then it could still be argued that it’s OK for them to kill whomever they wish anyway.

This is where the whole topic gets kind of absurd to me. Somehow the great majority of people happen to believe that murder is wrong and, I believe, have an innate aversion to it. The same goes for rape, torture, pedophilia and incest and perhaps to a lesser degree theft and lying and various other wrongs. It’s as if these things go against our nature in the same way that barking goes against the nature of a cat. And yet cats don’t bark while some humans do murder. Why would this be?

There’re all kinds of theories as to why but to me the obvious reason humans kill is simply because they can-because we possess the freedom to do things regardless of whether or not doing those things are outside of our nature. We can determine, for ourselves, what will be right and what will be wrong, like the people in your example who were determining the fate of the unborn. And yet some of those people may have been unwittingly determining that a human being should die.

We can be talked into-or talk ourselves into-believing virtually anything, especially if it behooves us in some way to do so. For example, it may be easier to believe that a fetus is just a hunk of flesh if it presents an inconvenience to us that we think we’d be better off rid of. People often believe the truth to be what they prefer it to be. I see so many instances of this in myself and others that I simply don’t trust the human species to necessarily be consistently true to its own nature.

I think all of this suggests that while people’s opinions about morals are subjective, this in no way implies that morality is subjective.

I would say that there’s no greater good that a man can attain than to be true himself by being true to God. We must look both within and beyond ourselves for the answer-for an objective morality to consciously obey-because the problem is us. All wrong is committed in the name of right-via subjectively held values.

 

[ToddM]

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.

To put it in crayon and fingerpaints terms (my personal favorite really) Christ himself tells us that we will suffer here.

A ‘good’ person implies a ‘bad’ one. A bad person seeks something good in the wrong way, making that which is sought ‘bad’, and ever more desirable, because he cannot attain it by himself, while ‘bad’. What is this unsatisfied desire for? How do you go about attaining it?

One of the key, exclusive points of Christianity is that you can’t. ‘With man, this is impossible.’ Christianity is revelatory. In other faiths you look for God.

In ours, he comes for you. He has to, because of the ‘sin colored glasses.’

Otherwise, we are damned to seek our ‘god’ in the wrong place, Hell.

To preempt; a proven god, isn’t. No matter how refined the philosophy, or how well ordered, or even completely, perfectly reasonable, one cannot avoid faith, as annoying as this is sometimes.

 

[LilyM]

Well, the afterlife is always a huge factor in the reckoning of those of us who believe in a God, and doubtless a factor in God’s reckoning too. Since the afterlife is, in our belief, eternal, whereas our time on earth is finite, the afterlife forms the greatest and most important part of that reckoning.

 

[StCsDavid]

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.

I suspect that what you’re missing is that we theists don’t necessarily have a linear view of reality, but rather an eternal one. Secondly, Catholic Christians have a communal view of the world versus a individualistic one.

Bad things? That’s a subjective term in itself. What’s bad for one might be good for another.

Finally, being Christian is not an exercise in action equals reward, but rather an act of love for person, a Divine Person, our Lord Jesus Christ. With that love any “bad” I experience can be used for good.

 

[fhansen]

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.

We believe that God has a pretty much “hands off” position in terms of human morality in this world. Human freedom, situated in a world where corruption and eventually death is the rule, is allowed to reign so radically and supremely that any and all things-good and bad-can and do happen to any and all people. The apparent purpose of this and of allowing the “wheat to grow with the tares” is to produce in us the understanding that we absolutely need God if there’s to be any hope of life where evil, suffering, sickness, and death have no power over us. We believe He’s revealed the cause of the problem-the “Fall”- where mankind basically rejected and separated themselves from Him (the state we find ourselves in now) and the cure-Jesus’ atonement-where God actually enters the world to prove His love and trustworthiness and show us the way back to Him-if we’re willing. Kind of a radical notion but a relatively simple task if you happen to be God.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

It takes a high degree of ‘education’ to strip away all common sense.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Abortion is killing an unborn baby. That is never right, no matter what your “personal truth” tells you. No matter how many ridiculous mental gymnastics you try to go through, abortion is evil and unjustifiable. Right and wrong, good and evil, do not change for each person or based on what each person wants. That’s why we have the Ten Commandments for everybody, everywhere, for all time.

It doesn’t matter if it’s convenient for your “lifestyle” or not, killing an unborn baby is wrong.

 

[dbg]

Right and wrong, good and evil, do not change for each person or based on what each person wants. That’s why we have the Ten Commandments for everybody, everywhere, for all time.

Surely you would at least acknowledge that right and wrong change depending on the individuals involved. For example it is not necessarily wrong for me to (on your view, that is) seek to marry Jane (given that I am male) while it would be wrong for Michelle to seek to marry the same Jane (since she is different and unlike me is female. Here we have the same concrete act (seeking to marry Michelle) – yet it is wrong for one but not wrong for another.

And what about the situation where a man and woman want to marry each other and seek to do so – nothing wrong with that; you might call that right. Now how about if a man and woman wouldn’t want to marry each other but their respective parents are pressuring them to do so. Now we can say that what the parents are doing is wrong, but I want to focus on the man and woman – would they be doing something wrong if they were to seek to marry in such a case even though they really don’t want to? I think you would say yes (so both the man and woman would be doing something wrong as well as the parents) – yet the only difference with respect to the man and woman seems to be that in the former case they want to marry and in the latter they wouldn’t want to but seek to do so despite their preferences. So here is a case where the morality of an act is colored by our wants and desires.

So it’s not as black and white as it seems now, is it?

 

[fhansen]

Surely you would at least acknowledge that right and wrong change depending on the individuals involved. For example it is not necessarily wrong for me to (on your view, that is) seek to marry Jane (given that I am male) while it would be wrong for Michelle to seek to marry the same Jane (since she is different and unlike me is female. Here we have the same concrete act (seeking to marry Michelle) – yet it is wrong for one but not wrong for another.

And what about the situation where a man and woman want to marry each other and seek to do so – nothing wrong with that; you might call that right. Now how about if a man and woman wouldn’t want to marry each other but their respective parents are pressuring them to do so. Now we can say that what the parents are doing is wrong, but I want to focus on the man and woman – would they be doing something wrong if they were to seek to marry in such a case even though they really don’t want to? I think you would say yes (so both the man and woman would be doing something wrong as well as the parents) – yet the only difference with respect to the man and woman seems to be that in the former case they want to marry and in the latter they wouldn’t want to but seek to do so despite their preferences. So here is a case where the morality of an act is colored by our wants and desires.

So it’s not as black and white as it seems now, is it?

But the only moral issues involved here from a Catholic perspective are whether or not marriage between the two people is right or wrong based on things like their ages, previous marital status and their genders. The Church wouldn’t care how or why people get together-she’s not a dating service. Many marriages begin where everyone’s sure it’s a good thing and they divorce anyway.

 

[packermann]

I would never do such a thing because it would be contrary to my values but I can imagine someone having a coherent set of values where it would not be wrong relative to their values. To give you a fictional example, if you’ve seen the movie Kingdom of Heaven, a mother who loves her son dearly, nevertheless engages in a mercy killing after she learns that he too has leprosy. Again I wouldn’t do such a thing but if she was true to her own values and true fully, she would have done no wrong – for there is no greater good that man can attain than to be true to himself. That would seem self-evident.

So wouldn’t that mean that, if a mother kill her child, and as long as she was true to her values, that she should not be prosecuted. And we could not even judge these values, since it matters not that anyone shares these values as long as she was true to herself.

 

[dbg]

So wouldn’t that mean that, if a mother kill her child, and as long as she was true to her values, that she should not be prosecuted. And we could not even judge these values, since it matters not that anyone shares these values as long as she was true to herself.

You shouldn’t “judge” her values, but you should still protect the child once its being is separate from the mother’s. One cannot say that the being of the fetus is wholly seperate from the mother’s – for instance is the umbillical cord while the fetus is still in the womb a part of the mother’s body or the fetus’ body? Where does the mother’s body end and the fetus’ body begin?