The argument that God provides a basis for objective moral values is bad

[psychoslice]

Yes, and so why do we need god to be god ?.

 

[psychoslice]

How would you define good?

Well I certainly don't believe in a personal God, like a man in the sky. God to me is all there is, its who we are, we are like waves on the ocean, but we are also the ocean, its only our perception that makes it seem separate.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'd say morality is by definition objective. Morality has to do with each person's behavior in society, in the group of people, and how the group accepts the behavior. Objective is the word that describes something that is not subjective. It's not up to the person's own need, greed, wants, desires to base his morality, but rather it's based on the community--which is an objective entity essentially.

One analogy I was thinking of here earlier is traffic laws. There are countries without traffic laws. Everyone drives on either side and do whatever they want. Higher chance of accidents, traffic jams, etc. Not bad for society. Driving by subjective rules. Then you have UK, where they drive on the left side. Objectively, everyone has to obey that rule, or there are accidents and people get hurt, so for the greater good, everyone gives up their subjective wants and obey. Same with US, but driving on the right side. Either one is right, because they both produce safer driving conditions. Left or right side doesn't matter, but they're objective rules that everyone agrees to obey regardless of subjective wants, for the greater good. Morality is like that. If there is none, society is a mess. With it, it's better and safer, but there's no universal morality except, but where moral code exists, it's an objective code.

For the greater objective good? or for your own subjective protection? this analogy doesn't reflect immoral acts that hurt only others, or that hurt yourself indirectly

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What would lead you to believe morality is relative?

Because there's no such thing as an unbiased moral agent, including a deity.

 

[Cephus]

Hardly!

The personal perception and expression of morality is, of course, bound by the characterstics of the person itself.

What is ultimately moral or not is difficult to fully delimiter, mainly because our data and our reasoning proccesses are of course finite.

None of that denies that morality itself is objective, albeit often difficult to delimit.

In order for morality to be objective, by definition, it must not be open to the whims of human opinion and desire. It must stand on it's own, without any connection to human subjective ideas. You'd have to show that there is an objectively demonstrable morality that stands entirely apart from humanity, such that you can discover what is moral and what is not moral externally, not internally. I've yet to find anyone who can do that, most simply play word games and try to twist the meaning of the word "objective".

Are you paying attention? Of course I am "making up" a definition for morality. That is what definitions are.

Try to understand it and you will see that it is not that hard.

You don't "make up" a definition of a tree. It's right there. You describe it, you don't define it. Trees exist objectively, they are demonstrable. Now do that with morality.

Nope. As already pointed out by Ouroboros earlier in this thread, you are confusing "absolute" with "objective".

"Absolute" really has no meaning at all. I want you to show that there is a set of morality that exists separate from humanity, that we did not invent, that is true for all time and in all places. Morality that changes across time and space isn't objective, it's just something people came up with and applied as they went on, the very definition of subjective. Just because you want morality to be objective doesn't mean it actually is. You need to prove it. Show your work.

 

[serp777]

I don't know if we should base morality on Science. Science can inform one of facts. But Science tends to be cold and emotionless because it sort of has to be. But if Science stands up and says, hey people with cerebral palsy have no quality of life and we should just euthanize them out of mercy. Through the cold hard facts that is Biology, this stance would be justifiable, agreeable and Scientifically accurate. So if we based morality on Science alone, then yeah we'd go round euthanizing people with Cerebral Palsy. But what if a person who has that condition flat out tells you that they want to live anyway? That they would rather live their life to the best of their ability regardless? What should you morally do? Science says that it's better they die short and without pain. What should you listen.

Well my point was simply that scientific analyses lead us to be able to make more accurate calculations within a utilitarian framework. And you can't really justify euthanasia of people with cerebral palsy with science. Unless you could show through a study that people with cerebral palsy didn't contribute anything to society and they didn't enjoy life at all, only then could you do euthanasia. But many people with cerebral palsy live very successful lives, and they enjoy them.

i certainly support euthanasia if a person is in extreme, long lasting pain or has a terminal illness and they have consent. It saves the family from paying ridiculous medical bills and it spares the person from a miserable existence of falling apart.

 

[serp777]

I see a problem with it though. The utility, happiness, is not the same all over the world. One big difference between west and middle-east is that in the west, we value personal freedom, ownership, independence, pursuit of personal happiness, etc, while in the middle-east, pleasing God is what they believe makes them happy. In the west, we think that if we're successful and happy, God is somehow happy with us. Something like that. Essentially, I feel that there's no common definition of what utility is supposed to be, scientifically speaking. In our society today, it seems like longevity and health is what makes people happy, but that's not necessarily true. A person can live a short life, and in poor health, and still feel very happy with life, perhaps more than a person living 100 years but never does anything fun. It's like issues with coffee, alcohol, etc. Why can't a person enjoy those things and be happy, even if it makes one's life shorter? Why is a long boring life better?


I think reasoning is the main part. Science can only bring in the facts of aspects of things, but ultimately, it's our reasoning, values, culture, ideology, etc that guides what is right or wrong.

Well utility isn't an easy calculation for sure, but it makes the best decision for the most people. The United States and Europe follow secular utilitarian guidelines, which attempts to grapple with questions like how we can make life as best we can for everyone on average. Of course you can't make everyone maximally happy, but you can make the majority happy and try to accommodate the minority as best you can. Many Muslims, for instance, get along just fine in the United States since freedom of expression allows them to praise God as much as they want.

 

[Sunstone]

All knowledge is ultimately subjective by definition. The closest humans get -- or can get -- to objective knowledge is intersubjectively verifiable knowledge. But even that is subjective, and to suppose that intersubjectively verifiable knowledge has an objective basis to it is to indulge oneself in metaphysical speculation. There neither is, nor can there be, any truly objective morality because there can be no certain knowledge of such a thing.

 

[Caligula]

Actually, the way I see it is a communal thing is an objective thing. Subjective is relating to one person. Objective is to something outside a person.

Law is considered objective.

For instance:

What is OBJECTIVE? definition of OBJECTIVE (Black's Law Dictionary)

I especially like the part "Neutral: An unbiased attitude or opinion that is based on factual evidence."

I think morality can be kind'a in that category. It's unbiased. But also, above there it also says "A collection of goals", which suggests a group of subjective attitudes, but not a single one or single person's goals.

When something exists outside and independent of the community, I'd rather call it absolute or universal, and not use the term objective, because of how subjective/objective plays out. That was my point earlier.


Yes. It is. But as such, it is objective to the individual (even if we can agree it is "subjective" to the community).

The problems I have with your definition of morality is that breaking the code/law would translate into an anti-social act rather than an immoral one.

You say that objective is something outside a person but the sum of other people's subjective morality views does not equal objective morality. By your definition "objective" is dependent of majority within a certain community. If that's the case, the term "objectively" is no longer necessary and we can focus on moral standards within a certain community, at a certain time. ...The problem that arises is that there is still no objective morality by which a community can be judged from outside. IMO the proposal you're making for objective morality is simply not feasible.

 

[serp777]

I happen to agree that an objective moral law is not possible without God. My feeling is that as people use their agency and ignore God's law, they then create rules which are particular to an individual (subjective), or particular to a culture (relative). Come judgment day however, all will be judged according to the objective law.

Objective moral law isn't possible with God either. People choose a particular religion and interpretation that suits their morals and upbringing. The choice of this, particularly the interpretation, makes it inherently flawed and subject to debate. The time period especially determines someone's morality. The only reason you think there will be a judgment day for the morals you have determined is because you came to some interpretations that others would certainly disagree with. The type of God who would judge us from some objective absolute standard would be the totalitarian God of entrapment. Not only do we not have clear evidence for this particular God, but we do not have a complete set of perfectly unambiguous morals that a perfect being would surely create. We are set up to fail depending on which century and culture we're born into. So if morals aren't relative then everyone has been unfairly judged by a celestial judge, jury, and executioner as well as a law maker. You also assert that you know what the morals of this celestial North Korea are, and you claim to have some special knowledge not available to all of us about an alleged judgment day.

if God had created a book that was entirely unambiguous in all languages then I would agree, but because he didn't its why we have thousands of different interpretations and morals.

 

[serp777]

How would you define good?

What religion inherently isn't

 

[Kirran]

Just a quick response, as I have to head off about a minute ago:

If two people have different ideas about what constitutes good and bad, any two people (which I think we can assume to be the case) and we can't absolutely know which one is correct in their worldview and basis for said beliefs (which we can't, we can only agree with one or the other or both to varying degrees) then morality must be subjective, because we just have no solid, universal basis for it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But even that is subjective, and to suppose that intersubjectively verifiable knowledge has an objective basis to it is to indulge oneself in metaphysical speculation

Exactly. Conflating speculation and assumption with "fact" is the source of much confusion.

 

[LuisDantas]

In order for morality to be objective, by definition, it must not be open to the whims of human opinion and desire. It must stand on it's own, without any connection to human subjective ideas.

If by "subjective" you mean "taking the subject (person) into account", then by definition morality must be subjective to even exist.

That however does not mean that it is "freestyle" when it comes to its goals and results. In that sense, morality is objective: it is and it must be possible (albeit at times challenging) to compare alternate choices and courses of action in order to clearly establish which are morally sound and which are not.

 

[SomeRandom]

Well my point was simply that scientific analyses lead us to be able to make more accurate calculations within a utilitarian framework. And you can't really justify euthanasia of people with cerebral palsy with science. Unless you could show through a study that people with cerebral palsy didn't contribute anything to society and they didn't enjoy life at all, only then could you do euthanasia. But many people with cerebral palsy live very successful lives, and they enjoy them.

i certainly support euthanasia if a person is in extreme, long lasting pain or has a terminal illness and they have consent. It saves the family from paying ridiculous medical bills and it spares the person from a miserable existence of falling apart.

It was a hypothetical scenario, mate. Not a Scientific fact. If Science says tomorrow, by all the measurements we take, people with Cerebral Palsy are better off being euthanized would it be objective moral or not to do so? What other qualifiers would one need if you're only working off science? If there are then Science, whilst a good quantifier of ethics, only goes so far. (For the record I am pro euthanasia for those suffering.)

 

[Kirran]

I think the concept being discussed is whether, for example, it's objectively wrong in some way to lie, or commit adultery, regardless of opinions people may hold on the matter.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the concept being discussed is whether, for example, it's objectively wrong in some way to lie, or commit adultery, regardless of opinions people may hold on the matter.

Lying is indeed objectively wrong, mainly because it hurts the so badly necessary weave of mutual trust and mutual understanding that any functional society needs.

The exceptions are much, much lesser than legend would have it. It is a very interesting subject matter, this of how come people perceive lying as of such questionable morality when it is by nature so deeply immoral.


Adultery must be carefully defined. If it means betrayal of a promise of exclusivity, then of course it objectively wrong as well. As a matter of fact, it is a very specific form of lying.

 

[Cephus]

If by "subjective" you mean "taking the subject (person) into account", then by definition morality must be subjective to even exist.

The definition of subjective is: "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions". The definition of objective, as I've posted before, is: "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts". Which of those two definitions best fits morality?

That however does not mean that it is "freestyle" when it comes to its goals and results. In that sense, morality is objective: it is and it must be possible (albeit at times challenging) to compare alternate choices and courses of action in order to clearly establish which are morally sound and which are not.

The reason so many people want morality to be objective is because they don't want to actually have to defend their moral views. They simply want to declare themselves correct and leave it at that. It's both easier and more emotionally comforting to think that they have everything dialed in and cannot be argued against. However, that's not how it works. Ease and comfort do not a valid philosophical position make. The fact is, to the people who once owned slaves in America, slavery was a moral system. That is what they believed. Today, we disagree. We have different views. In another 200 years, it's entirely likely that our ancestors may think we are all a bunch of immoral animals. The idea that we can find the one true and correct morality is absurd. There's no such thing. It changes from place to place and across time. To radical Muslims in the Middle East, we are immoral because we don't require our women to wear head-to-toe covering. To many in the west, we consider them immoral because they do. Which is true? Both, depending on your perspective. They have their views on morality and we have ours, both based on our own particular axioms and assumptions. It is the essence of subjectivity.

 

[viole]

A time traveler from the past would have a morality not as advanced as ours, so it would be difficult. It would be the same as trying to convince a three year old that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are uncool. We would be coming from uncommon ground.

Well, uncommon ground is guaranteed.

But I am not sure what do you mean with "more advanced".

He could claim that morality went south since his time and that today is vastly worse than in the past. I can show him my iPad to prove that our technology is more advanced. But what can I show him to prove that our morality is more advanced as well?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kirran]

Lying is indeed objectively wrong, mainly because it hurts the so badly necessary weave of mutual trust and mutual understanding that any functional society needs.

Why does that make it objectively wrong? Those are just the reasons that you think it's wrong.