Objective Morality Without God

[Ella S.]

I am not. I really tried to consider other perspectives, but none made any more sense to me. Can you elaborate if you disagree with my assessment? In what way could God have created objective reality?

Why?
It is important to distinguish power in itself from authority.
So, if I create a box made of wood, that entails I have the power (or had) to choose it's features. I have power over the wood if I can change its' features (such as shape).
If I am a king though, my power to create rules actually comes from my authority. As in, I can coerce people into obeying.

If God has raw power over morality on this world, he can change morality according to his will. But morality is not physical, it is like a set of rules, so in what way would he shape morality?

I wrote a few different replies to this of varying quality. I think I'll put it this way.

Traditional theology is closely associated with Platonic idealism. Under Platonic idealism, truth isn't an aspect of physics, but an aspect of metaphysics and ontology. It can't be evaluated through purely empirical methods. The material world is merely a manifestation of the mental one. So "objective reality" is the shared, external world, which is synonymous with the mind of God.

Since what we call "objective reality" is the literal mind or dream of God, then every thought of God's is objective. His morality becomes objective. Everything exists because he thinks it into existence.

It's a fundamentally different way of viewing the concept of reality.

 

[Koldo]

Taming absolutely counts.

No that is not my proposal. This is becoming a strawman.

As I said in the beginning, and I restated in my most recent previous reply. I am defining immoral as completely opposite of the truth. Up is down, black is white, dog is cat, all of these have zero value. Claims like this are objectively immoral. Dog is dog, cat is cat, up is up, down is down, has value and is objectively moral.

And since there is some confusion, I'll restate again. If a hierarchy exists, ignoring that or misrepresenting that is immoral. If reality isn't fair, pretending it is, is also immoral.

A cougar is a cat and a calico is a cat is true, eventhough a cougar and a calico are not identical. I could even argue that under certain circumstances, in poetry or comedy, that saying a cougar is a calico has value and is not immoral.

A cougar is a calico is a "half-truth", and I excluded those from my proposal at the very beginning, and restated it recently.


Ummmm how do you know? You're making assumptions about the divine realm with zero knowledge, correct?

My proposal does not require knowledge because I am saying "it could be moral if it's true." You're saying "it can't be true, because it isn't", but you have no actual basis for this.

You have said that misrepresentation is immoral. Analogous representation is at least in part a misrepresentation and therefore immoral.

Now, how do we know if the hierarchy between God and angels is not accurately represented by the hierarchy between humans and sheeps, but rather merely analogous? The power balance in each group is distinct.

I'm not making an analogous representation. And that's actually the whole point.

If I were making an analogy, and an analogy would work to represent the truth, then slaves would not be required at all to accurately represent the truth of the divine order. Any old hierarchy would serve the purpose. But that's not my position.

Well, I didn't fully explain that did I? That would an incentive, but not really a moral imperative. The moral imperative comes from the interconnectedness of the Jewish people like grapes all on one vine. If one grape is diseased, it spreads to the other grapes. So one person's impurity affects the whole bunch.

What makes affecting the whole bunch with impurity an immoral action?

 

[Koldo]

I wrote a few different replies to this of varying quality. I think I'll put it this way.

Traditional theology is closely associated with Platonic idealism. Under Platonic idealism, truth isn't an aspect of physics, but an aspect of metaphysics and ontology. It can't be evaluated through purely empirical methods. The material world is merely a manifestation of the mental one. So "objective reality" is the shared, external world, which is synonymous with the mind of God.

Since what we call "objective reality" is the literal mind or dream of God, then every thought of God's is objective. His morality becomes objective. Everything exists because he thinks it into existence.

It's a fundamentally different way of viewing the concept of reality.

At the end of the day, that is just saying that objective reality doesn't exist. Objective morality would therefore be a misnomer.

 

[Brian2]

ie. Flat Earthers aren't wrong because they disagree with scientists. They are wrong because the Earth isn't really the shape that they think it is.

Mixing material in garments is wrong for a Jew because God has told them not to do it, and it is OK for us because God has not told us not to do it.
Does that mean that everything is morally wrong that you think is wrong or that everything that you think is morally right is actually right?
I don't think there is a hard and fast answer to that one.

I think doing the best you can is the best we can ever hope for. It's the same with math exams. When you are solving math problems during a math exam, you might get some wrong. Does that mean you shouldn't try to figure out the correct answer? Does it mean that there IS no objectively right answer just because you get the answer wrong sometimes?

I don't think morality is something that "can be decided." It's something that we have to figure out.

There are three main metaethical theories that contemporary ethicists work with:

1) Moral Realism

2) Relativism

3) Moral antirealism (sometimes called moral nihilism).

To me, the real question is between 1 and 3. (Moral realism vs moral antirealism). Moral realists (for various reasons) think that some moral claims can be true. Antirealists (for various reasons) think that no moral claim can be true.

You could think of antirealists as "atheists about morality." They think that morality is a fairy tale... some human invention. Much like Odin or Yahweh. Just some made up sh**. I respect that view. Even if I express disagreement with it.

Moral relativists think that it boils down to individual or cultural opinion whether a moral claim is true or not. To me, that's just absurd. It's like saying the shape of the earth depends on whether you're a flat earther or a contemporary scientist.

Either morality is real or it is not real. People's opinions and beliefs, including my own, do not determine the truth of the matter.

Relativism is like saying that Zeus DOES exist according to the ancient Greek opinion. But according to the Ancient Egyptians, Zeus does not exist.

Who cares? Either Zeus exists or he doesn't. Even people who don't believe Zeus exists acknowledge that, in the view of the average ancient Greek person, Zeus DID exist. Likewise, moral realists AND antirealists acknowledge different opinions about morality exist.

Lets consider some cannibalistic tribe for a moment. According to the established folkways of that particular tribe, cannibalism is fine and perfectly permissible. Even a moral realist (whether she thinks cannibalism is wrong or not) can recognize that according to the dictates of the cannablistic tribe cannibalism is good and permissible. Even a moral antirealist (who thinks that all moral questions are founded upon misunderstanding) can recognize that according to the dictates of the cannibalistic tribe cannibalism is good and permissible. Relativism doesn't dare to claim anything one way or the other whether morality is real or not. So I think relativism is pretty useless as a theory. It explains nothing that competing theories can't explain and relativism doesn't even TRY to explain anything more than them.

But the other two theories (realism and antirealism) acknowledge everything that relativism does (ie. folks disagree) and then BOTH of those theories go one step further and try to determine what is actually true. That's why I reject moral relativism. For its uselessness. Not just its falsity.

Without a moral authority then morality is a human construct that differs from culture to culture because of that. What is considered right or wrong in certain cultures however is not really what determines what is right or wrong for an individual in those cultures at any one time. Moral choices at times are more complex than just what your friends think of a particular action from a cultural perspective. As I said, there can be more factors involved.
I'm glad that I am not the one who is going to judge people. It would certainly need someone who sees it all, including the heart of the person involved.
Doing the best you can certainly has good points to it.

 

[Augustus]

I mean it like this: I don't experience what my children experience, even though I gave rise to their subjective experiences. If I were God, I possibly could choose to experience it too, but that's not necessary.

Again you are not appreciating the difference between God and a human. God doesn't "choose" to experience it in the way you might..

You aren't omniscient and you aren't the sole causal agent of everything in the universe.

God is, so he cannot be ignorant of that which you perceive.

Anything that exists in your mind exists in his 'mind' too.

It is impossible that something can be purely dependent on the human mind because this necessitates an omniscient God being unaware of it as well as humans being able to act independently of a omnipotent God.

The water is going to freeze under those conditions regardless of whether anyone exists. It is mind independent.
But those conditions are indeed arbitrary, at least in principle.

And, if God wills it, adultery is going to be wrong for humans even if he wipes them all out in a flood. It will always be objectively true that adultery is a sin for humans.

Like water freezes at 0c, it is a law of the universe. A fact.

It is not dependent on the human mind in this Divine universe as it would be in an atheistic universe.

You lost me here. Can you elaborate what this has to do with your argument?

Your argument is that physical things are not human mind dependent but abstract things are, even though both are creations of the same designer via the same process.

The ability to differentiate between physical and abstract is another thing created by this same designer via the same process.

Either all of these are subjective preferences of the designer and nothing is objective, or all of them are objective as they are just parts of the same design.

 

[Koldo]

Again you are not appreciating the difference between God and a human. God doesn't "choose" to experience it in the way you might..

You aren't omniscient and you aren't the sole causal agent of everything in the universe.

God is, so he cannot be ignorant of that which you perceive.

Anything that exists in your mind exists in his 'mind' too.

It is impossible that something can be purely dependent on the human mind because this necessitates an omniscient God being unaware of it as well as humans being able to act independently of a omnipotent God.

Ah, I see where you are coming from. There is a certain gray area. Is omniscience equal to unlimited knowledge or is it the capacity for unlimited knowledge? I think the latter would entail more potence, and therefore be more in line with omnipotence. But I can see why one would pick the first one.

And, if God wills it, adultery is going to be wrong for humans even if he wipes them all out in a flood. It will always be objectively true that adultery is a sin for humans.

Like water freezes at 0c, it is a law of the universe. A fact.

It is not dependent on the human mind in this Divine universe as it would be in an atheistic universe.

The laws of the universe that says that water freezes at certain given conditions describe a physical process that takes place at those conditions.

What physical process is being described by any law concerning morality?

Your argument is that physical things are not human mind dependent but abstract things are, even though both are creations of the same designer via the same process.

The ability to differentiate between physical and abstract is another thing created by this same designer via the same process.

Either all of these are subjective preferences of the designer and nothing is objective, or all of them are objective as they are just parts of the same design.

My argument is not that abstract things are HUMAN mind dependent. My argument is that abstract things are mind dependent. I am definitely not saying that morality requires human existence. Rather, I am saying it requires a mind perceiving something as moral.

Everything that exists objectively, mind independent, does so because of the subjective preferences of God. By saying that something is mind independent I don't mean it's origin is mind independent, but rather that it doesn't exist merely in someone's mind.

 

[wellwisher]

The problem with moral systems without God, is the ego cannot always see it own limits and liabilities. Nor can the ego always extrapolate the consequences of its short term actions.

If you were living in the now, your actions will be optimized based on immediate gratification of the senses. The new freshman going to college will see all the activities and fraternity parties and may decide to enjoy these. These are optimized to the short term. This short term approach, may not be optimized for the long term planning, needed to get through the semester with high grades.

The optimization of any moral code, is often a function of its time scale of perception. If you think in the moment, short time scale, one may objectively conclude that all the parties are the best way to fill your sense and keep a smile on your face.

Since God is assumed to be eternal, classic moral systems need to use a much longer time scale, with some systems using a time scaling extending beyond your own life; one must make accommodations for heaven and hell. This time scale of perception will have different sweet spot based on its extended perception of time. All the parties may not be optimized, now. Now you much plan parties that can extend over your life and even extrapolate beyond the lifetime of your children; rituals. This is why religions linger in time; bigger and more enduring than yourself.

A person with ADD is wired for very short term perception. They need to move faster than normal to be optimized. If we all had to move this fast, w may conclude they are right on the button, in terms of optimizing. But culture prefers a slower pace, making the ADD appear less than optimized for us. Religions takes that to an ever more distant perception in time. Time scale differences for perception is the basis for the divide between moral systems. The Atheist living day to day may not see the objective need to make so many sacrifices, today.

Most of the sins in various religious moral codes have do to do with impulsive behavior; very short time scale. Thou shall not kill is based on the fast animal impulses of adrenaline; fight or flight. These are not designed to linger, but are optimized for quick time response. These moral codes try to keep the flock thinking with a longer time scale, where such fast impulses are not see as being based on valid long terms. data. They are optimized in the very short term but not in distant time scales.

The brain has what are called pacers cells which keep timing like a metronome. This helps set the tempo which conscious perception gauges reality. In times of war, when everything is moving so fast, time can appear to slow, so the pace of reality is made more comfortable, and one can act quickly to the immediate needs. Often when soldiers go home, they are bored at the slower pace used in peacetime. It feels hard to be optimized when their pacer cells; extrapolants, are faster and the optimized actions of war are now forbidden.

 

[Augustus]

The laws of the universe that says that water freezes at certain given conditions describe a physical process that takes place at those conditions.

What physical process is being described by any law concerning morality?

Again you are thinking about it the wrong way.

The mental process/physical process distinction is not pertinent in this context regarding objectivity.

In the theistic world, both processes are purposely designed by God for specific reasons and with specific functionality.

Objectively, they are both manifestations of his will, so one can't be more "objective" than the other.

What you are saying is that one may appear more objective than the other to an unenlightened human observer, but this is merely an illusion.

 

[Koldo]

Again you are thinking about it the wrong way.

The mental process/physical process distinction is not pertinent in this context regarding objectivity.

In the theistic world, both processes are purposely designed by God for specific reasons and with specific functionality.

Objectively, they are both manifestations of his will, so one can't be more "objective" than the other.

What you are saying is that one may appear more objective than the other to an unenlightened human observer, but this is merely an illusion.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'objectivity'?

It feels like terminology is getting in the way here. The central point here is whether morality can be created as a feature of the world (objective morality) as opposed to a feature of minds (subjective morality). Right?

 

[Augustus]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'objectivity'?

Works with either (but the first is the one usually used for objective morality):

1) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

2) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual

 

[Koldo]

Works with either (but the first is the one usually used for objective morality):

1) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

2) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual

I way editing that post to include this:

"It feels like terminology is getting in the way here. The central point here is whether morality can be created as a feature of the world (objective morality) as opposed to a feature of minds (subjective morality). Right?"

 

[Augustus]

I way editing that post to include this:

"It feels like terminology is getting in the way here. The central point here is whether morality can be created as a feature of the world (objective morality) as opposed to a feature of minds (subjective morality). Right?"

You are the only person I've ever seen use that definition of objective morality. Most discussion of obj/subj morality wouldn't make any sense if discussed in that way.

The contrast is usually between objective morality (underpinned by God or something else) where some things are factually immoral, and relativistic morality that depends on subjective personal values when judging the morality of acts.

In this case, it is clear that a God could create such standards because he creates 'the rules for the game' (as well as the world, everything in it, every concept, etc.).

But, for the sake of discussion, if we do use your definition, in the world of an omnimax God, then morality is a feature of the world. Everything is a feature of the world, purposely designed and maintained by God.

There is nothing that can be simply a feature of the human mind, dependent on human perception for its existence.

 

[Koldo]

You are the only person I've ever seen use that definition of objective morality. Most discussion of obj/subj morality wouldn't make any sense if discussed in that way.

The contrast is usually between objective morality (underpinned by God or something else) where some things are factually immoral, and relativistic morality that depends on subjective personal values when judging the morality of acts.

By saying that morality is 'mind dependent' I mean the truth value of moral claims 'depends on values in the mind of the one judging'.

My claim goes a bit further than that saying not only that morality is subjective, but also that it can't be objective. For there can be no morality without a mind that has values to make moral judgments.

In this case, it is clear that a God could create such standards because he creates 'the rules for the game' (as well as the world, everything in it, every concept, etc.).

Those rules are abstract and can only exist within a mind. They are not a feature of the world, but they can be a feature of the minds within that world. But not of the world in itself.

But, for the sake of discussion, if we do use your definition, in the world of an omnimax God, then morality is a feature of the world. Everything is a feature of the world, purposely designed and maintained by God.

There is nothing that can be simply a feature of the human mind, dependent on human perception for its existence.

I am not talking about HUMAN mind dependency.

 

[Augustus]

By saying that morality is 'mind dependent' I mean the truth value of moral claims 'depends on values in the mind of the one judging'.

My claim goes a bit further than that saying not only that morality is subjective, but also that it can't be objective. For there can be no morality without a mind that has values to make moral judgments.

Unless of course there is an external agent that sets these standards and maintains them independently of human consciousness.

By definition, an omnipotent God can do these.

Whether you judge an act to be moral or not is irrelevant to whether the action matches the standards set by God.

Those rules are abstract and can only exist within a mind. They are not a feature of the world, but they can be a feature of the minds within that world. But not of the world in itself.... I am not talking about HUMAN mind dependency.

But an omnimax God doesn't have a 'mind' in that sense. Everything in the world is "mind dependent" for that God because if he doesn't will it into existence it doesn't exist.

From the perspective of the God there is no distinction between physical and mind dependent - there are just different manifestations of his will.

If these are not all objective, then nothing can be objective.

You can't say a tree created by the god has an objective existence but morality created by the god doesn't.

 

[Koldo]

Unless of course there is an external agent that sets these standards and maintains them independently of human consciousness.

By definition, an omnipotent God can do these.

Whether you judge an act to be moral or not is irrelevant to whether the action matches the standards set by God.

By definition, an omnipotent God still can't do what is logically contradictory.

If morality necessarily requires the existence of a mind, then God can't create morality without creating a mind alongside or beforehand.

The truth value of moral claims is contained within minds and nowhere else, for if there is no mind with any given set of values moral judgments can't be made.

But an omnimax God doesn't have a 'mind' in that sense. Everything in the world is "mind dependent" for that God because if he doesn't will it into existence it doesn't exist.

From the perspective of the God there is no distinction between physical and mind dependent - there are just different manifestations of his will.

If these are not all objective, then nothing can be objective.

You can't say a tree created by the god has an objective existence but morality created by the god doesn't.

You are mixing up two different concepts. When I am talking about whether something is dependent I am not talking about it's causal origin, but rather about what is required for it be (or even remain) into existence.

Morality along with other abstract concepts exists within the mind, and is therefore mind dependent. If all minds ceased to exist, all abstract concepts would cease to exist. Regardless of their causal origin.

An actual tree along with other concrete objects exists outside the mind, and are therefore not mind dependent. If all minds ceased to exist, all concrete objects would continue to exist (more or less given the laws of nature/physics, since objects are not eternal per se). Regardless of their causal origin.

 

[Ella S.]

At the end of the day, that is just saying that objective reality doesn't exist. Objective morality would therefore be a misnomer.

Yes, at least in the naturalistic sense of "objective reality." Objectivity means something quite different to a mental monist.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, at least in the naturalistic sense of "objective reality." Objectivity means something quite different to a mental monist.

I must confess I have little regard for mental monism.

 

[Bird123]

Hi folks. The idea of objective morality is something I've given serious scrutiny since I began studying philosophy.

One key item I think it's good to settle before proceeding into the thick of metaethics is what role God or (insert religious entity here) has to do with whether morality is objective or not.

Some people think morality is subjective. "Is morality subjective or objective?" is another very important ethical query. But that's not the question I'm asking here. My question is: "If morality IS objective, could God's pronouncement be the thing that makes it so?"

I tend to think: no.

In my view of things "stealing is wrong" or "stealing is bad" aren't true simply because God says so.

In my view, stealing is wrong for reasons. Personally, I see a plethora of things wrong with theft. It causes suffering. Arguments could be made that we are entitled to the fruits of our own labor. Plenty of reasons stealing is wrong. And if THOSE REASONS explain why stealing is wrong, then God's forbiddance of it has little to do with the objectivity of the statement: "stealing is bad." God's pronouncement that stealing is forbidden has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of it. Even if God exists and created the universe, his commandments cannot be what makes things right or wrong.

Some of you may notice that I'm hitting on an ancient Greek argument. But I don't want to get stuck on that argument. I'd like to move beyond it. I think there are even more reasons than the ones I've listed in this OP. But this is as good of a starting point as any.

So does anyone disagree with me here? If so, where precisely has my reasoning gone astray? And what good arguments can you quote (or produce yourself) that support the thesis that God existing is necessary for morality to be objective?

In God's system, each will decide for themselves which are the best choices. God will return our actions and choices to us so that one understands what one's choices really mean. When one understands all sides, Intelligence will make the Best choices.

Since, in time, everyone will make the Best choices, there is no need to define good or evil or the vague line that separates. This, of course, spans many lifetimes. The time-based causal nature of the universe is Perfect for this. That is why it exists!!

One of the petty thing mankind values is control. In an attempt to control, it is mankind attempting to define what is good and what is bad. Mankind also values the petty things of intimidation, coercion and payback in an attempt to alter the actions of others. It's a melting pot of everybody wants to rule the world.

God has Great Intelligence. Instead of trying, like mankind, to draw the fine line between good and evil, it is easier and more Intelligent just to teach others to choose the Best choices. With God's way, there is no need to judge or hate others. On the other hand, mankind has a long road to Discover what all those petty things they value really are. This is when mankind will let them go.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[dybmh]

You have said that misrepresentation is immoral. Analogous representation is at least in part a misrepresentation and therefore immoral.

Nothing is being misrepresented.

A square can be made out of identical pencils or it could be made out of identical crocodiles. Guess what? Theyre both squares. They do not need to be exact replicas, because that is not the definition of a square. A square of pencils doesn't misrepresent squares. A square of crocodils doesn't misrepresent squares.

A corporate structure with a CEO, then VPs, then managers then laborers is a hierarchy. The food chain is a hierarchy. They both are hierarchies, but they're not identical because that is not the definition of a hierarchy.

I know you understand this.

Now, how do we know if the hierarchy between God and angels is not accurately represented by the hierarchy between humans and sheeps, but rather merely analogous? The power balance in each group is distinct.

We don't, and, you've just confirmed my point. Whether or not sheep have wings is completely irrelevent to the concept of a hierarchy.

What makes affecting the whole bunch with impurity an immoral action?

Because the harm is unjustified. If it matters, all the grapes are on one vine, they are part of the same group. The hierarchy is not compromised.

 

[Koldo]

Nothing is being misrepresented.

A square can be made out of identical pencils or it could be made out of identical crocodiles. Guess what? Theyre both squares. They do not need to be exact replicas, because that is not the definition of a square. A square of pencils doesn't misrepresent squares. A square of crocodils doesn't misrepresent squares.

Your example is interesting because a square has, by definition, four straight sides. But you won't find perfectly straight sides. A square of crocodiles would have slightly different sides compared to a square of pencils.

A corporate structure with a CEO, then VPs, then managers then laborers is a hierarchy. The food chain is a hierarchy. They both are hierarchies, but they're not identical because that is not the definition of a hierarchy.

But they are hierarchy in different senses of the term. Animals don't give orders to each other in the food chain, unlike in your business hierarchy example, they just kill and eat. Likewise, the hierarchy in business has nothing to do with killing and eating.

We don't, and, you've just confirmed my point. Whether or not sheep have wings is completely irrelevent to the concept of a hierarchy.

By what means do you determine whether something is relevant to the concept of hierarchy?

Because the harm is unjustified. If it matters, all the grapes are on one vine, they are part of the same group. The hierarchy is not compromised.

What makes unjustified harm immoral?