Morality Without God?

[PaulSacramento]

So, according to your view, ALL morals are subjective, there is no objective morality, correct?

Well, yeah. Some of the moral values might seem objective because a majority of people respect that, but you have to understand that moral values have changed with time. So they are subjective. People are subjective and if they agree on certain rules, the rules are objective to the point that everyone is forced to respect them, but the source/origin is subjective.

I can't say that morality is objective because first of all I would have to demonstrate that I am objective in relation to moral values or that moral values are objective in relation to me. I can't do that.
Can you do that?

Bryan, the example that jlay gave is not murder. Do you know the difference between murder and killing? Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

The paragraph from wiki starts with 'Murder is the unlawful killing'.
And I didn't say that jlay will become a murderer. He will become a killer. I was very clear on my choice of words.

I can respect the view that morals are subjective.
I think that the view that morals ARE objective IS subjective.
I think that ALMOST all people will agree that there are things that are WRONG, the issue is WHAT those things are and WHY they are wrong.

[RickD]

Here's your error, Bryan. MURDER was punishable by death. Justified killing was not. Do you see the difference?

Mate you just proved my point...

You have unjustified killing and justified killing... That's kind of subjective, don't you think?

Bryan, the discussion is about Objective Morality, and if it exists without God. Not about a person acting objectively or subjectively.

Bryan, I'm asking you to assume God exists for a moment. God says murder is wrong.:Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder.

Therefore murder is objectively wrong. Killing isn't necessarily wrong. God commanded man not to murder, so it's wrong. If God then commanded someone to kill someone else, would it be murder? I think that's the question on this thread that the bigger disagreement is about.

God says murder is wrong.
God then supposedly commands people to kill other people.
Therefore God is now immoral.

[PaulSacramento]

Sometimes we have to explain where WE are coming from when we believe certain things.
I believe there is an objective moral, an absolute moral and that it comes from God, via Christ through the HS and this is why:
Speaking ONLY for myself-
I was raised by semi-religious parents ( before they became JW's) and was instilled with typical judeo-chritian values that I paid, to be honest, lip service to.
I was told that stealing was wrong, but I stole as a kid.
I was told that cheating was wrong but cheated, both at school sometimes ( too lazy to study) and in my relationships (sex good, monogamy , bad).
I was told there was a God, but didn't really believe it for various reasons and never cared one way or another.
I had no notion of responsibility to God at all and was very much a GR type of guy, like the most, in short, I paid lip-service to the GR as well.
Years of MA training and traveling and studying history convinces me that morals are 100% subjective, might makes right and survival of the fittest means that my MA skills made me far more apt for survival and to take what is mine, than those that did not have them.
My time in the military didn't change that view.
Until as a peackeeper in Bosnia I saw a lesson in compassion and forgiveness that struck home enough to make me question many things.
Not convince me mind you, LOL, not even close, but it put a spark of doubt in my mind.
To make a long story short ( this is where the audience yells, "too late"):
Something happened and My Lord opened my eyes to that fact that He was always there.
I accepted Jesus as my Lord and saviour and I accepted the HS into my life.

Strange things was, all of a sudden, things didn't seem that "subjective" anymore.

What never bothered my before, bothered me now, what I used to have a very flexible moral compass for, became very clear cut.
What was subjective became objective and, if I am totally honest, NOT because I WANTED it to be that way !

I never believed in an absolute moral good and evil, never believed in objective morals, never believed that what is good, is good because it is good, not because it is good for me, or good for the majority, but because IT IS GOOD.
Never wanted to believe it and never did.

Until something "clicked" and now I do.

[Echoside]

Here's your error, Bryan. MURDER was punishable by death. Justified killing was not. Do you see the difference?

Mate you just proved my point...

You have unjustified killing and justified killing... That's kind of subjective, don't you think?

Not at all. That which makes the act justified or unjustified does not change. In all cases of the above scenario killing is justified, assuming OM.

[Spock]

The reason the GR has value is because it is meaningful to humans as a collective whole. In other words when something is viewed as meaningful from every human angle, not being dependent on an individual interpretation, but true no matter who views it (even if they don't practice it)...it then becomes objective to humans.

Butterfly, Spcok,

No. It becomes universal, not objective. You are confusing the two. By default, if a human perceives GR to be objective, that is his subjective view. It may be "objective" as in, as subjective as it it gets, but not objective.

Because you contradict when you posit the GR is not dependent on individual interpretation...and this is what? Your interpretation. How can it be objective then?

It is circular.
If anyone contradicts you, you would simply say, he is not rational. This is simply a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Good morning neo-x,

As you know, philosophers have differences about the meaning of "objective." There will be no way for any of us to make progress in this discussion until we agree about a definition. I begin with the common sense ordinary meaning of the word from Webster's:

Objective (adj)
: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
: having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a

The first part of the definition is how I have been using the word: "an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers." Of course, by "sensible" we would have to include things that can be perceived only by the mind, such as logic and mathematics. This is why the second part which defines objective as "independent of mind" has problems. Equations like 1 + 2 = 3 are certainly objectively true but we don't know if it (or anything) is "independent of mind." There is perennial philosophical debate about such things and we certainly won't resolve it here so if we want to make any progress we will have to agree on a pragmatic definition of objectivity. I think the definition given above is entirely sufficient for our discussion.

We also must clarify the relation between interpretation and objectivity. All statements require interpretation. The equation 1 + 2 = 3 requires a lot of interpretation. We must know what the symbols mean and how they relate. Yet the statement is objectively true. Therefore, the mere fact that something requires interpretation says nothing of whether or not it is objective.

Now that we have a definition of objective we can use it to define objective statements.

Definition: A statement is objective if its truth value can be determined by an objective test.

Note that this definition states a sufficient but not necessary condition. There may be objective statements for which we have no test. For example, "God exists" may be objectively true even though there is no objective test to determine that fact.

Examples:

Objective: It is 73 degrees and sunny outside.
Subjective: The Grateful Dead plays great music.

Applying this to morality we have:

Definition: A moral statement is objective if its truth value can be determined by an objective test.

So the question comes down to this: What is the test? How do we determine if something is or is not moral? It is my argument that the Golden Rule provides such a test.

Is there any other moral theory that can provide such a test? The Divine Command Theory fails utterly because we don't have any direct access to the the Divine Commands and so have no way to test if anything is moral or not. Appeal to a sacred text is no help for three reasons. First, there is no objective test to determine which, if any, sacred text accurately represents the Divine Commands. Second, there is no sacred text that unambiguously states a complete set of the Divine Commands. Third, all existing sacred texts have many possible interpretations and there is no objective test to determine which, if any, is true. This means that the Divine Command Theory fails redundantly. I can't imagine how anyone could take it seriously for a moment.

Here are the logical problems I am facing if I do endorse what you are saying or what Spock said to be precise.

The underlying symmetry is what makes the GR objective, this is in essence the core of Spock's argument. Ok, now "An eye for an eye" is also the same principle but it is the exact anti-thesis of GR. There is an underlying symmetry here too. The interchange of actions in an eye for an eye become objective because of the underlying symmetry.

Why does the symmetry make the GR objective? Because the symmetry is based on the principle of indifference which says there is no OBJECTIVE reason to prefer one over the other. This is the same logic we use to determine the OBJECTIVE statistics of rolling a six sided die. We expect each face to appear 1/6th of the time because there are six faces and no reason to prefer one over the other. Same goes for human faces.

The Lex Talionis has a kind of superficial symmetry and that's why it appealed to primitive people with an undeveloped moral sense. It obviously fails as a moral theory since the true moral theory must cohere with love. Why do you think that all morally advanced people reject the Lex Telionis? It obviously fails the test of the Golden Rule which in its purest expression is merely the Law of Love. Indeed, most if not all of the confusion in this discussion would evaporate if folks understood that morality is the logic of love.

Also, an eye for an eye, does not change, the same way you say that the GR, does not change, which means that regardless of interpretation, the rule can be applied to everyone. It is meaning full no matter who accepts or rejects it.

I never said that symmetry was a sufficient condition. It is only a necessary condition. Not all symmetric statements are moral or even true.

I would also contend that "an eye for an eye" is objective because it is a meaningful form of action. If a person murders, he is either put to death by the law or be life time imprisoned, being equal to the years of his life. If he steals, in Saudia, they actually cut their hands he is imprisoned for his actions. "An eye for an eye" carries a form of justice or revenge but I think it is more subtle than that. It carries the idea that every action can have equal consequences. The symmetry exists in an interchange of two persons. The symmetry is valid because it can be equally carried out both ways.

Yes, the Lex Talionis is objective. But it is objectively evil whereas the GR is objectively good.

The difference with the GR should be evident. The GR is logical framework powered by self-love. A computer makes a fine analogy: if the circuits are logic, love is the electricity. The only way we could possibly love others is if we have direct personal knowledge of what love is. This knowledge comes from the intrinsic love that every being has for its own self. It is an axiom that self loves self. That's why Christ equated love with unity amongst believers. This love then expands to include others symmetrically through the Golden Rule. It is a progression from self-love to Self-love, where the capitalized Self refers to the ultimate unity of all reality which is nicely captured in the Bible in the statement that God, who is identified with love, is the "all in all."

I would say then that we have two principles which hold the claim of objectivity, yet are the exact opposite nature of each. Would it not then be the case that the law of non-contradiction be breached? Because we have two opposite claims and both of them can not be right at the same time. One is wrong or both are wrong but both can not be true.

My point right here is not only that the GR can not be objective but also that it can not be objective when the underlying principle also makes its anti-thesis objective as well.

The reason I can use the same mechanics is because the GR is not truly objective in the sense you are calling it objective. It is only subjectively (to rational humans as valid meaningful course of action) objective, not more.

See, if you disagree, I have by equal right, as you, the option to say that those who contradict are simply irrational. As they could not see the symmetry which can be applied equally under this rule, to anyone and furthermore, they can not agree that any given action has its equal consequences.

Can you see the dilemma?

Well, I can't see the dilemma, but I can see how you erroneously came to your conclusion. Mere objectivity is not a sufficient foundation for a moral theory. You say that the "underlying principle" is the same in both cases. That is not true. The underlying principle of the Golden Rule is symmetry based on self-love. The underlying principle of the Lex Talionis is revenge, causing others to suffer in a way similar to the suffering they caused. This is a sort of perverse way to try to force others to perceive the intent of the Golden Rule, which is that they should consider the effect of their actions on others in order to determine the moral value of their intended action.

[RickD]

Spock wrote:
As you know, philosophers have differences about the meaning of "objective." There will be no way for any of us to make progress in this discussion until we agree about a definition. I begin with the common sense ordinary meaning of the word from Webster's:

Objective (adj)
: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
: having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a

Since this topic is in the philosophy forum, I think a philosophical definition for "objective morality" is what we should be shooting for.

Perhaps this:

So how to define moral objectivism?  The definition of "objectivism" in The Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words has this, "(in philosophy) the belief that certain things, esp. moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them."  Morality being "objective in the sense that they hold or not regardless of human opinion" (taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) is what "objective" normally means in the context of the moral argument. 

[jlay]

As long as I am subjective I can't smuggle any OM. You seem to have a hard time understanding that. You do understand that from my point of view, anything you say in relation to moral values is subjective, therefore I am not smuggling any OM. I am just making a comparison between 2 opinions pointing out that one can be proved easier than the other.

Of course you are Bryan. I am not saying you agree, but so what? If it's all subjective, then why comment at all? It's self-defeating.

When you pull the trigger it doesn't matter if you have a valid reason or not: YOU WILL BECOME A KILLER. The fact that the guy is slaughtering kids one by one will not change the fact that you killed someone.

And........?
Bryan, Rick already covered this. Let me present it this way. (And I would appreciate a response specific to this examples and questions. )
Scenario 1: Let's say a boy is playing ball. He makes an errant throw and it breaks the window in his dad's car.
Scenario 2: Now, let's say the boy gets angry with his dad and intentionally throws the ball through the car window.
Same boy, same dad, same ball, same window.
No question, the boy is a window breaker. The question is this. Is there a difference? You are saying no, which I think is demonstrably incorrect. You are discounting motive, which is at the heart of discerning right and wrong. You are saying the only reason it is perceived as wrong is because of what the boy has been taught. This says that the court should treat accidental killings the same as pre-meditated murders. It's absurd, and you should be able to discern that. If not, well..., there really is no point in further discussion.

YOU DO NOT THINK LIKE THAT. You are educated to believe what is good and what is wrong. Period. If your parents would have left you in a forest and you would have survived, you would have no moral values. Don't believe me?

NO ONE, and I repeat NO ONE is saying that morality isn't learned. That doesn't disprove OM. It only shows that we have the capacity to discern a moral ethic. I think the problem is you fail to see where this leads. Regarding feral children. There is little if any actual scientific study on the issue. Most info is either non-scientific, myth, or legend.

Simple question. Is it better to be educated to a follow certain moral principles, or not?

[jlay]

Spock,

As I and others suspected, you are not using the term objective in the sense as is Craig. Yet, it seems (and I could be wrong) that you are arguing against Craig's position on OM using your 1st definition. This is the fallacy of equivocation.

Rick has provided a definition that I believe would be consistent with Craig's usage.
So in the 1st definition, yes the GR is an example of OM, but only in the weak sense. All Craig needs to show is the distinction in Moral epistemology and ontology. His doesn't need an entire moral theory.

Next, is your theory new? I would conclude no.

The Lex Talionis has a kind of superficial symmetry and that's why it appealed to primitive people with an undeveloped moral sense. It obviously fails as a moral theory since the true moral theory must cohere with love.

Please define love.
How are you measuring developed versus undeveloped?
Sorry, but I see this also as question begging.

[Spock]

Spock wrote:
As you know, philosophers have differences about the meaning of "objective." There will be no way for any of us to make progress in this discussion until we agree about a definition. I begin with the common sense ordinary meaning of the word from Webster's:

Objective (adj)
: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
: having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a

Since this topic is in the philosophy forum, I think a philosophical definition for "objective morality" is what we should be shooting for.

Perhaps this:

So how to define moral objectivism?  The definition of "objectivism" in The Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words has this, "(in philosophy) the belief that certain things, esp. moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them."  Morality being "objective in the sense that they hold or not regardless of human opinion" (taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) is what "objective" normally means in the context of the moral argument. 

OK - let's compare the two definitions:

Objective
Philosophical: The belief that certain things, esp. moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.
Common Sense: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

The only relevant difference I see is the use of the word "exists" in the "philosophical" definition. The root idea is the common sense belief that there is an "objective world" that "exists independently of human knowledge." The definition is fine in that context but it seems to break down when it comes to abstract things that are not physical. What does it mean to say that the number 73 "exists?" The philosophical definition is the root of much confusion because the "existence" of ideas independent of mind may not even be coherent since all our ideas exist in our minds. It is an unsolved philosophical question, and so including it in the definition of objectivity infects our discussion with an unsolved problem which makes our question about objective morality itself unsolvable. This is why I think it is best to go with the "common sense" definition. And besides, the common sense definition is almost identical. The only difference is that it does not contain the confusion generated by the professional philopholers.

" Morality being "objective in the sense that they hold or not regardless of human opinion" (taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) is what "objective" normally means in the context of the moral argument.

And that's fine. It fits perfectly with the common sense definition that I recommend.

[RickD]

Here's WLC talking about OM, and he defines it too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmg720wO ... ata_player

From the video WLC says:"Objective moral values are values that are moral and binding whether anyone believes in them or not."

[BryanH]

Of course you are Bryan. I am not saying you agree, but so what? If it's all subjective, then why comment at all? It's self-defeating

I don't get it. If you find out one day that morality is subjective, will you jump off a cliff? I don't get all this self-defeating statement. As I said, subjective goes to a certain extent. It's not like you can do what ever you want. And morality being subjective doesn't mean that moral values change from one day to another.

Bryan, Rick already covered this. Let me present it this way. (And I would appreciate a response specific to this examples and questions. )
Scenario 1: Let's say a boy is playing ball. He makes an errant throw and it breaks the window in his dad's car.
Scenario 2: Now, let's say the boy gets angry with his dad and intentionally throws the ball through the car window.
Same boy, same dad, same ball, same window.
No question, the boy is a window breaker. The question is this. Is there a difference? You are saying no, which I think is demonstrably incorrect. You are discounting motive, which is at the heart of discerning right and wrong. You are saying the only reason it is perceived as wrong is because of what the boy has been taught.

Your example is flawed and you can't compare it to my example and I will tell you why:
scenario 1: boy has no intent of breaking the window
scenario 2: boy has intent
When you kill someone, even if it is justified, you have the INTENT to kill him. You do get that right? You CHOOSE to KILL. I don't care if it is justified or not. You are using subjective moral values: justified and unjustified.

This says that the court should treat accidental killings the same as pre-meditated murders. It's absurd, and you should be able to discern that. If not, well..., there really is no point in further discussion.

From my point of view: YES they should. Accidental or pre-meditated, once you kill someone, you can't take back what you have done. Once someone is dead, well, you know what happens. The fact that you are sorry or not won't change the fact: someone is dead and not coming back.

Since you like examples that much let me offer you one as well.

Scenario 1: Boy gets killed while swimming by a fast jet ski. (accident)
Scenario 2: Boy gets shot while thief trying to rob the house. (this is not pre-meditated, but you get the point)

Do you think that the parents care which scenario takes place?? They have no child anymore. Do you think that they care about moral values at that point? Their child was killed in both cases.

***I do understand what self-defense is and I fully support it, but I can't support objective morality at the same. Once you kill to protect yourself, well, that ain't objective at all. It can't be anymore clear than that.

Bryan, the discussion is about Objective Morality, and if it exists without God. Not about a person acting objectively or subjectively.

Bryan, I'm asking you to assume God exists for a moment. God says murder is wrong.:Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder.

Therefore murder is objectively wrong. Killing isn't necessarily wrong. God commanded man not to murder, so it's wrong. If God then commanded someone to kill someone else, would it be murder? I think that's the question on this thread that the bigger disagreement is about.

God says murder is wrong.
God then supposedly commands people to kill other people.
Therefore God is now immoral.

I know this example, but you see, the disagreement is not only about a God who commands people to kill other people. The problem is that God actually kills people himself at some point.

I have already received the answer for these two, but unfortunately, my 'OM' doesn't let me accept justifications for immoral actions just because they come from a GOD.

When you talk about morality and God, it's like flipping a coin that has the same imprint on both sides and you are asking me to pick one. That's cheating.

[Spock]

Spock,

As I and others suspected, you are not using the term objective in the sense as is Craig. Yet, it seems (and I could be wrong) that you are arguing against Craig's position on OM using your 1st definition. This is the fallacy of equivocation.

Hey there jlay,

I agree that would be the fallacy of equivocation. But if Craig is using the philosophical definition, then he is one who is equivocating when he justifies the existence of objective morality by saying that it is "obvious" and "we all know it" because his statements imply the common sense definition. This is obvious because the question of the existence of ideas independent of mind is a sophisticated and unsolved philosophical problem so it would be utterly irrational to say that the solution is "obvious" and that "we all know it." On the other hand, it is perfectly sensible to say that objective morality under the common sense definition is fairly obvious and that all morally normal people "know it."

Rick has provided a definition that I believe would be consistent with Craig's usage.
So in the 1st definition, yes the GR is an example of OM, but only in the weak sense. All Craig needs to show is the distinction in Moral epistemology and ontology. His doesn't need an entire moral theory.

And that is where his argument fails. It is irrational to make a strong disjunction between moral ontology vs. moral epistemology because it is the nature of an action and its effect on others (its ontology, what it is) that determines its morality through the Golden Rule. Thus we have a perfect coherence of ontology and epistemology. This is why Craig's command theory strikes me as so absurd. Things are right or wrong because of what they are and how they relate to others. No command from any god could change a moral fact.

Next, is your theory new? I would conclude no.

Then surely you must have seen it somewhere. Please post a link.

The Lex Talionis has a kind of superficial symmetry and that's why it appealed to primitive people with an undeveloped moral sense. It obviously fails as a moral theory since the true moral theory must cohere with love.

Please define love.
How are you measuring developed versus undeveloped?
Sorry, but I see this also as question begging.

I can see why you would think that is circular, but a moment's reflection reveals your error. Suppose we were talking about mathematics and I said that folks who disagree with 1 + 2 = 3 have an "underdeveloped mathematical sense." Would you say that my statement was "circular?" Of course not. And why not? Probably because you believe that this mathematical statement is objectively provable. It is interesting that Craig quotes Ruse's analogy between morality and basic arithmetic in this video linked in a previous post where he says "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5." So we all appear to agree that moral truths are objective like valid mathematical statements. Great! We are making progress. The next step is to ask "How do we test the truth of a moral statement?" The answer, I believe is the Golden Rule. I think it would be very enlightening if you attempted to state an objective test for morality.

[Spock]

Here's WLC talking about OM, and he defines it too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmg720wO ... ata_player

From the video WLC says:"Objective moral values are values that are moral and binding whether anyone believes in them or not."

That makes perfect sense because it doesn't contain the metaphysical speculation that moral truths must have "existence" that depends upon the existence of a god. That's the problem with Craig's moral argument for God. It assumes what it is supposed to be proving by importing an implied necessary "ground of being" (ie "God") in the definition of "objective." To see Craig's error, simply exchange morality with mathematics. His proof is then a mathematical proof for the existence of God:

1) If God does not exist, then no objective mathematical truths exist.
2) Objective mathematical truths exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.

So the question is this: What is it about "God" that would make something moral? Craig's answer is the mere assertion that God "commands" that moral things are moral. This is of course wrong because true morality is based on the nature of an action and its effect on the other. No "command" can change either of those facts.

As far as I can tell, Craig's argument for God ultimately reduces to an "argument for God from objectivity."

1) If God does not exist, then no objective truths exist.
2) Objective truths exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.

Is this the essence of his argument? If not, please explain the difference. And if it is, then why doesn't he use this as his real argument instead of clouding the issue with moral questions?

[Danieltwotwenty]

Just out of curiosity, Spock have you asked WLC these questions, since he is the source of this issue. You can email him on his website.

[Proinsias]

Thanks for making an appearance here Spock, it's made for a very interesting read. Still far from convinced of objective morality with or without God but plenty food for thought here and your argument is certainly far more eloquent than any previous attempts I've come across to ground morality in the absence of God.