Morality: Do you agree

[Nimos]

I am claiming that my moral code is written into every human being as truth. Why don't you care about it?

For the same reason, I don't care about a lot of other claims people make without proof. Im not sure where this is supposed to be going?

 

[Nimos]

Sorry if someone already raised this point, but why does it have to be objectively wrong to oppose it?

The opinions of society will get enforced regardless of whether they are objective or not.

In my opinion.

It doesn't.

The question is not whether we will enforce it, but rather the reason why we would enforce it. If it is objectively based, the argument would be to do it because there is a universal rule, saying that killing is wrong which leads to us wanting to enforce it. God wrote that into us or how you want to put it.

If it is subjectively based, no universal rule exists that would cause us to enforce it. But rather the reason we would do it, is because our morality has evolved over time into wanting to enforce it, such as to punish people for killing each other.

But ultimately if it is subjectively based, there is nothing inherently wrong with killing each other apart from humans thinking that it is or having agreed on it as being the case, this also means that humans will punish each other for it and that is it, there will be no ultimate judgement, like that of God.

If it was objectively based, the reason it would be considered wrong is that some 3rd party, such as God or some other force or entity in the Universe has decided that it is wrong, and that is the reason we see a need to enforce it. This ultimately also means that a being such as a God could punish people for doing so, like throwing them in hell or what else one might do.

The initial result, like enforcing a given rule, such as punishing people for killing each other, would be the same regardless of it being objective or subjective and we can't really see a difference between them. It is merely in regard to the reason for it and also in regard to whether it is justified to point fingers at others who do not share the same moral code as oneself if people's morality is simply made up/evolved and no moral judge exists.

Does that make sense?

 

[Nimos]

In that sense I believe in objective morality. However, if a person is ignorant of what is right or wrong, that mitigates his possible punishment by God.

Yes, that is how it would be, as I understand it. That is the fundamental idea behind religion. You oppose or break the will (rules) of God and you will be punished for it, but If you follow them, you will be saved.

 

[Koldo]

For the same reason, I don't care about a lot of other claims people make without proof. Im not sure where this is supposed to be going?

Therefore you also don't care about claims related to God's moral code? In other words, it is irrelevant in the first place to talk about objective morality without proving that it exists?

 

[Koldo]

There is no difference between physical/non-physical properties of a Divinely created world. They are all just things that conform with parts of the Divine will and can be perceived only by the continuation of this.

How did you reach the conclusion that there is no difference between physical/non-physical properties of a Divinely created world?

In a video game the visible character you control is not more 'objective' than the invisible mechanics that calculate damage received. Both are equally part of the game.

Even if that were true, morality is unlike the invisible mechanics that calculate the damage received.

That there is an external point of comparison by which the permissibility of an action can be judged, and people cannot simply opt out of this without leaving the 'sandbox'.

Human life would be equally sandboxed if there were a God, except there would be no way to leave it even if you wanted to.

I have no idea on what is the relevancy of having an external point of comparison or being able to leave.

Someone playing the old game and the modern game are not playing the same game, they are playing similar games that are often referred to with the same symbol (the word chess).

The word chess has a referent, and this referent is contextually dependent.

If I ask someone for a game of chess, the referent will usually be assumed to be the modern version. If I talk about ancient Persians, the referent is not the same thing.

People use the word football for soccer, American football, Aussie Rules, Rugby, etc. These all have a common history too, but they are not the same game.

They are different games with different rules and yet share the same name. And we can ignore whatever the original rules were but keep the name even if there was some sort of organization that insisted upon using the old rules. Just like we can ignore whatever old moral rules originally existed and create a new set of moral rules.

 

[Nimos]

Therefore you also don't care about claims related to God's moral code? In other words, it is irrelevant in the first place to talk about objective morality without proving that it exists?

It is not more irrelevant than talking about whether subjective morality exists either, is it? The camp is split in two, some believe in one and some in the other. Given that I personally don't believe in objective morality and am an atheist, you are correct that I don't care about God's moral code and my current conviction is that subjective morality best explains what is observed, but that doesn't mean that I would be so bold as to claim that I know this for certain.

So, no I don't think the debate is irrelevant.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This doesn't really make sense I think. Let's imagine I'm God:

"Killing people of colour is good" - so now a lot of people go out and do that.

one month later...

"Killing people of colour is evil and you will be punished for it by going to hell" - now everyone stops.

Those people of colour who got killed 1 month ago, because I thought that was good are now dead. Both of these statements can't be considered morally good.

I agree from a human perspective, but if you believe in divine command theory it must necessarily be the case that when God said it was good, it was good. And when God said it was bad, it was bad.

I have personally never heard anyone explaining God's nature to be like that, or at least I have never understood it like that. As far as I know, believers don't make the argument that God goes around changing his mind as you have explained it.

I think nowadays openly embracing divine command theory is a bit "out of vogue", but when ultimately challenged on objective morality it's what a lot of theists seem to adopt without knowing it. I don't think that makes them bad people, or even necessarily wrong, but if you believe that God sets the moral standard and no standard can objectively be said to exist outside of God, and that God's commands must necessarily be moral, you essentially adopt divine command theory. There's nuance there, to be sure, but broadly speaking it's a "if it walks like a duck..." scenario.

That doesn't really make sense I think.

If you "can't possibly assess if there is or isn't one" then how would you ever reach the conclusion that "can only result in a personal, subjective standard anyway"?

That is like me saying, "I have no clue whether intelligent aliens live somewhere else in the universe, but nonetheless, the only valid answer is that there are." the conclusion doesn't follow from the first statement. If I have no clue or way of telling if aliens could be somewhere in the Universe, the conclusion should be "I don't know" or "I don't know, but I think it is more likely, but is purely me guessing".

Because even if you believe there is a God and that God is the source of objective morality, you still need to determine what that moral standard is yourself, and since you are not God (at least, in most cases?) you can only do so through subjective analysis.

In other words, even if you believe there is an objective moral truth, you still need to pick and choose which set of truths you THINK are the objective ones based on a set of either arbirary or subjective criteria (such as choosing to follow the Bible vs. the Qur'an, or mixing up various passages from either, or rejecting all religious texts, etc.).

 

[Koldo]

It is not more irrelevant than talking about whether subjective morality exists either, is it? The camp is split in two, some believe in one and some in the other. Given that I personally don't believe in objective morality and am an atheist, you are correct that I don't care about God's moral code and my current conviction is that subjective morality best explains what is observed, but that doesn't mean that I would be so bold as to claim that I know this for certain.

So, no I don't think the debate is irrelevant.

It is not the debate that is irrelevant.
It is objective morality that is irrelevant.

 

[Pete in Panama]

It is not the debate that is irrelevant.
It is objective morality that is irrelevant.

Pardon me for coming in late, but u can't be saying that one person and kill, steal, lie, and that's the same as someone else who doesn't --are u saying that? Please clarify.

 

[Nimos]

I agree from a human perspective, but if you believe in divine command theory it must necessarily be the case that when God said it was good, it was good. And when God said it was bad, it was bad.

I don't think that is true. For morality to make any sense, there needs to be some rationality behind it. Therefore God can't get away with anything simply because he is the creator. Even if God were to decide morality it needs to make sense for him as well.

If morality, in the sense that it is created or even evolved one must be able to judge former moral standards as being either right or wrong, or said in another way they have to develop.

Like in the past when we did human sacrifices, we can now look at that and conclude that it was morally wrong, due to the development we have experienced throughout history. But God does not follow these rules as he is said to know the past, present and future. So he would logically know if something is immoral or not.

Now, this doesn't mean, as you say that morality even God's couldn't change, but it would still need to be justified. Like, God believing that homosexuality is a sin, punishable by death, to then suddenly not be. The justification that homosexuality was a sin to begin, and that this from a human perspective doesn't really seem to matter at all. And I would risk my head saying that whether a person is of a given sexuality bears no impact on whether a person is "good" or "evil", not back then and not now or in the future.
So if God were to change his mind about this, he would need to justify why it was ever considered wrong to begin with, and obviously, it would be nice if he would justify why it is even considered wrong at all.

I think nowadays openly embracing divine command theory is a bit "out of vogue", but when ultimately challenged on objective morality it's what a lot of theists seem to adopt without knowing it. I don't think that makes them bad people, or even necessarily wrong, but if you believe that God sets the moral standard and no standard can objectively be said to exist outside of God, and that God's commands must necessarily be moral, you essentially adopt divine command theory. There's nuance there, to be sure, but broadly speaking it's a "if it walks like a duck..." scenario.

The most common answer in my opinion when believers are presented with a moral question which is very difficult to answer is that "God works in mysteries ways", "We are not able to understand God's plan" or something along that way and translated into common language it means that they have no clue or answer to it.

Because even if you believe there is a God and that God is the source of objective morality, you still need to determine what that moral standard is yourself, and since you are not God (at least, in most cases?) you can only do so through subjective analysis.

In other words, even if you believe there is an objective moral truth, you still need to pick and choose which set of truths you THINK are the objective ones based on a set of either arbirary or subjective criteria (such as choosing to follow the Bible vs. the Qur'an, or mixing up various passages from either, or rejecting all religious texts, etc.).

I don't think so, as it would go against the meaning of objective morality.

"Killing/torturing infants are wrong" you don't need a religious scripture to have an opinion about that, in fact, I would probably argue that most people haven't even given any thought to whether it is actually wrong or not, it seems to be a given that it is. And those that are supporters of objective morality will most likely argue that it is because God wrote in our hearts or something or that it is simply part of life if one does not assign it to the divine. But at least as far as I know, most if not all lifeforms seem to not eat their own offspring.

 

[Nimos]

It is not the debate that is irrelevant.
It is objective morality that is irrelevant.

But it is not irrelevant if it is true. It would mean that there is definitely something/someone in charge of morality and that it is beyond our reach, at least to a given extend.

 

[Koldo]

But it is not irrelevant if it is true. It would mean that there is definitely something/someone in charge of morality and that it is beyond our reach, at least to a given extend.

1) But since there is no proof, why would it matter? You don't seem to care if I am the one in charge of morality.

2) Even if objective morality existed, why would it matter? What if it was objectively moral to rape everyone? Would you rape people?

 

[Koldo]

Pardon me for coming in late, but u can't be saying that one person and kill, steal, lie, and that's the same as someone else who doesn't --are u saying that? Please clarify.

Definitely not.
I understand morality as a concept that arises from conscious agents and that moral rules don't exist apart from their minds. What I am referring here is a debate about what constitutes the source of morality, not whether murder is morally wrong.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And you are right. This behavior in animals is instinctive, and that is another prove they were created with what they needed to adapt and survive.

A lion does not attack an animal without a "good" reason. He does not think about it, he just knows it.

Maybe we overthink it

 

[Augustus]

How did you reach the conclusion that there is no difference between physical/non-physical properties of a Divinely created world?

They are all are equally designed and created by God and have been since the beginning of time.

Even if that were true, morality is unlike the invisible mechanics that calculate the damage received.

The method of judging the morality of an action would be. There are invisible mechanics judging your actions against the standards set by God.

This is no different from a video game 'judging' your actions based on the game's mechanics.

I have no idea on what is the relevancy of having an external point of comparison or being able to leave.

Yes, that seems to be the problem.

You really don't see why having a definitive and fixed point of comparison is different from making subjective comparisons?

They are different games with different rules and yet share the same name. And we can ignore whatever the original rules were but keep the name even if there was some sort of organization that insisted upon using the old rules. Just like we can ignore whatever old moral rules originally existed and create a new set of moral rules.

Creating a new set of moral rules in a Divinely created world is like trying to move your king 5 spaces in an official chess tournament.

You can do it, but it's objectively wrong.

 

[LuisDantas]

Creating a new set of moral rules in a Divinely created world is like trying to move your king 5 spaces in an official chess tournament.

You can do it, but it's objectively wrong.

Is it?

Why?

Are you assuming that such a creator deity would not allow or want sentient beings to have any significant moral discernment of their own?

 

[Pete in Panama]

Definitely not.
I understand morality as a concept that arises from conscious agents and that moral rules don't exist apart from their minds. What I am referring here is a debate about what constitutes the source of morality, not whether murder is morally wrong.

Sounds like you're saying "no" and then you seem to go back and repeat what I asked.

So what I'm hearing is that morality only exists as a product of what some conscious mind think up. If a group of conscious minds decided that killing, stealing, and lying was ok for them then that would be their choice. Other conscious minds can decide something else if they want and that would be equally valid.

In contrast to that belief is that there is an objective morality that holds killing, theft, and lying as being inherently wrong, and the idea of the existence of an objective morality is something you don't subscribe to.

 

[Augustus]

Is it?

Why?

Are you assuming that such a creator deity would not allow or want sentient beings to have any significant moral discernment of their own?

It's just a hypothetical example of what could be true contingent on such a God existing.

But, moral discernment would be to act in accordance with what the God has willed whether that is follow a list of commands or think for yourself.

The point is there is a correct answer one way or the other, even if humans don't know what it is.

 

[Koldo]

Sounds like you're saying "no" and then you seem to go back and repeat what I asked.

So what I'm hearing is that morality only exists as a product of what some conscious mind think up. If a group of conscious minds decided that killing, stealing, and lying was ok for them then that would be their choice. Other conscious minds can decide something else if they want and that would be equally valid.

I wouldn't phrase it that way. Nobody is deciding what is moral per se. We are perceiving whether something is moral.

In contrast to that belief is that there is an objective morality that holds killing, theft, and lying as being inherently wrong, and the idea of the existence of an objective morality is something you don't subscribe to.

Pretty much, yes.
Not only I don't subscribe to it. I also don't see how it could exist in the first place, nor what would be it's value if it did. Imagine for example that it happens to be the case that killing, theft and lying is always objectively moral. Would you do those things whenever just because it is moral?

 

[Nimos]

1) But since there is no proof, why would it matter? You don't seem to care if I am the one in charge of morality.

That is an odd way to look at it, I think.

We tend to try to understand the world around us and in some cases, the proof is not currently available or understood. Why do scientists waste time on dark energy and dark matter, there is no proof for it, just throw it in the bin then.

I don't care if you are in charge of morality, because there is nothing even remotely suggesting that you are. It's like me telling you... "You don't care that I told you I created the Universe. I don't understand that?"

2) Even if objective morality existed, why would it matter? What if it was objectively moral to rape everyone? Would you rape people?

If we thought that rape was morally good, then yes, we would prefer going around and raping people and it would not be considered a crime or even wrong.

If you like to see debates, here is a debate between an atheist and a believer, both hold the opinion that objective morality is true. The debate is about what offers the best explanation for it. I am just about to watch it myself so don't know if it is good or not, but it might be interesting for you to hear their arguments, since they both agree on that. I overall agree with you, that there is no such thing as objective morality, so in that regard, we agree, you just seem very certain in your conviction that there is no alternative at all and therefore no reason to even listen to the other side's arguments, maybe I misunderstood that. But a lot of people both now and throughout history have found this topic relevant and interesting, so it might be worth listening to them and hearing their views.