Objective Morality Without God

[Koldo]

I didn't say I don't see what is wrong with suffering. I see what is wrong with it from my personal subjective point of view. What I cannot do is say that objectively my suffering is morally wrong. I cannot make myself an objective arbiter based on personal subjective feeling, that is nonsense. My personal feelings, suffering here, do not dictate what is objectively moral or immoral for others. Nor even for me. Objectivity is by its very definition not subject to personal experience, feelings or otherwise- you are trying to take two incompatible things and mix them. Either you can have objective morality or you can have morality given meaning by feeling, but you can't have both.

As Salix said though, you haven't answered the question.

God's morality is objective based on God's being outside of human subjectivity and as the very creator of all of these things. As maker, he gives the standards, being as he out outside of time, space, feeling, etc. He has the most objective view possible.

This is for you to decide. Many people do find issue with this.

Being outside of human subjectivity, space, time, etc. doesn't make one objective, nor does it make any moral commandments from such entity objective. Would you rape people if God decreed that all rape is moral? Would an objective moral decree like that be better than your own moral code?

 

[Rival]

Being outside of human subjectivity, space, time, etc. doesn't make one objective, nor does it make any moral commandments from such entity objective. Would you rape people if God decreed that all rape is moral? Would an objective moral decree like that be better than your own moral code?

This isn't the point.

And my question remains unanswered.

You are still using your own personal subjective approach to rape, here. You are still using feeling and experience to dictate whether an action is wrong or right. The whole point of objective morality is that it is not subjective experience and feeling that make an action wrong or right - otherwise it would no longer be objective as it's based on subjective criteria. God is outside of these subjective experiences. He is a neutral third party without feelings.

If morality is based on subjective personal experience it is fundamentally made up according to each individual and is therefore useless to everyone else around the individual. If you want to have a standard of morality applicable to everyone around you, it simply cannot be based on what you experience and expect everyone to experience the same way.

God, as being outside of all of this, comes in as a non-subjective moral arbiter without feeling or experience.

 

[Rival]

@Koldo

At base, you argument goes 'If God justified rape, does that justify it?'

Many would say 'No.'

But they say 'no' based on subjective experience of rape.

'We shouldn't rape because it causes suffering.'

But what is morally wrong with suffering? This is why you need to answer this question, as it's at the art of this.

 

[Koldo]

This isn't the point.

And my question remains unanswered.

What question specifically?
I will answer it if you answer mine: Would you or would you not rape people if God decreed that all rape is moral? Would you support people raping others?

You are still using your own personal subjective approach to rape, here. You are still using feeling and experience to dictate whether an action is wrong or right. The whole point of objective morality is that it is not subjective experience and feeling that make an action wrong or right - otherwise it would no longer be objective as it's based on subjective criteria. God is outside of these subjective experiences. He is a neutral third party without feelings.

If morality is based on subjective personal experience it is fundamentally made up according to each individual and is therefore useless to everyone else around the individual. If you want to have a standard of morality applicable to everyone around you, it simply cannot be based on what you experience and expect everyone to experience the same way.

This is why it is important to have an intersubjective moral code. It is not about what I alone experience, but what we all experience.

God, as being outside of all of this, comes in as a non-subjective moral arbiter without feeling or experience.

This presumes that God doesn't have feelings himself and that an objective moral system can be anything other than completely arbitrary.

 

[Rival]

What question specifically?

Why is suffering morally wrong.

I will answer it if you answer mine: Would you or would you not rape people if God decreed that all rape is moral? Would you support people raping others?

No.

This is why it is important to have an intersubjective moral code. It is not about what I alone experience, but what we all experience.

We simply cannot create a moral code based on what everyone experiences, this would take you into the realms of total absurdity. Many people experience reduced feelings, no feelings, desire for revenge, unbridled lust, greed, hatred - we need something beyond human experience to guide us. We cannot base it merely on feelings or experience, tis is childlike imo.

This presumes that God doesn't have feelings himself and that an objective moral system can be anything other than completely arbitrary.

In Classical Monotheism God is without emotion and yes, the system may seem arbitrary to human beings without God-knowledge.

 

[Koldo]

@Koldo

At base, you argument goes 'If God justified rape, does that justify it?'

Many would say 'No.'

But they say 'no' based on subjective experience of rape.

'We shouldn't rape because it causes suffering.'

But what is morally wrong with suffering? This is why you need to answer this question, as it's at the art of this.

Suffering is the very baseline by which we judge something is morally wrong. Your question is like asking: What is morally wrong with morally wrong?

If you take suffering out of the equation, the word "immoral" becomes devoid of meaning. Morality is centered around well-being.

 

[Rival]

Ayn Rand tried to justify objective morality.
But she had to choose her premises.
Others start with different assumptions.
But objectivity, ie, reason, can apply once
the premises are chosen.

The problem is that these premises are not themselves objective, but on a day to day basis I see no issue with your argument. It's the basis of nearly all societal norms.

 

[Koldo]

Why is suffering morally wrong.

Replied just above.

No.

Why not?

We simply cannot create a moral code based on what everyone experiences, this would take you into the realms of total absurdity. Many people experience reduced feelings, no feelings, desire for revenge, unbridled lust, greed, hatred - we need something beyond human experience to guide us. We cannot base it merely on feelings or experience, tis is childlike imo.

I suggest you read about John Rawl's veil of ignorance.

In Classical Monotheism God is without emotion and yes, the system may seem arbitrary to human beings without God-knowledge.

No. It is arbitrary no matter whether we have God-knowledge. What facts about the world (the entire existence) if known would allow you to reach the conclusion of what is objectively moral? None.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem is that these premises are not themselves objective....

Exactly my point.
Morality is subjective, not objective.

 

[Rival]

Suffering is the very baseline by which we judge something is morally wrong. Your question is like asking: What is morally wrong with morally wrong?

If you take suffering out of the equation, the word "immoral" becomes devoid of meaning. Morality is centered around well-being.

Alright, if we take your line of argument:

Whose well-being is it based on? Are you going to end up with a Utilitarian model? This has its own obvious problems.

What if someone suffers because of someone else's wellbeing?

You then justify theft, lying, possibly even rioting, revolution etc. in ways many people would object to on other bases. If the populace is suffering is it alright to kill the earls? To behead the King? The shoot the whole royal family?

In the aim of living in a secular state, is it morally justified to affect the wellbeing of the religious? To tell them to dress in certain ways that may go against their own moral standards and sense of well-being?

Or, more controversially, is there no place for suffering? Is all suffering always wrong - what about the kind that leads to self-reflection, awakening, renewed sense of self and purpose, desire to change oneself or one's attitudes? What about necessary suffering in childbirth, battle, fitness training, or non-physical ways such as hard study or emotional pain?

 

[Rival]

Exactly my point.
Morality is subjective, not objective.

Whilst I'm not here to disagree, the OP is talking about objective morality re God. I think generally we apply subjective morality based on mostly agreed societal norms that often tend to be far from objective or even strange.

 

[Rival]

What facts about the world (the entire existence) if known would allow you to reach the conclusion of what is objectively moral? None.

This is a bold conclusion.

 

[Rival]

Why not?

For the same reason that God allows slavery in the OT but it is not practiced by Jews or Christians.

We believe society is better and fairer without it.

Again, if you read my original post I was not saying 'suffering is fine' or 'suffering can never be immoral' - I specifically said I play devil's advocate - take up a position I don't necessarily agree with - to ask probing questions.

On a day to day basis we are totally agreed that most kinds of suffering are morally wrong to inflict upon a person. Whether or not God says so we have consistently used our own feelings and experiences as another benchmark. This is fine. No-one here is arguing against this.

What I am asking, from a philosophical and ethical point of view, is why is suffering morally wrong from an objective point of view? Because objectivity by its nature does not take into account personal feelings, so the baseline we use is mooted and we need to chose another one. The OP specifically addresses objective morality with God. This precludes any personal feeling based system.

I suggest you read about John Rawl's veil of ignorance.

Ok.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whilst I'm not here to disagree, the OP is talking about objective morality re God.

I read the OP as far broader than just about God.
Let's not suggest anything that might get me
accused of derailment.

I think generally we apply subjective morality based on mostly agreed societal norms that often tend to be far from objective or even strange.

I agree.

 

[Koldo]

Alright, if we take your line of argument:

Whose well-being is it based on? Are you going to end up with a Utilitarian model? This has its own obvious problems.

What if someone suffers because of someone else's wellbeing?

You then justify theft, lying, possibly even rioting, revolution etc. in ways many people would object to on other bases. If the populace is suffering is it alright to kill the earls? To behead the King? The shoot the whole royal family?

In the aim of living in a secular state, is it morally justified to affect the wellbeing of the religious? To tell them to dress in certain ways that may go against their own moral standards and sense of well-being?

Therefore...?
I don't quite understand why you are asking those questions. Do you want to debate about what is the better moral system?

Or, more controversially, is there no place for suffering? Is all suffering always wrong - what about the kind that leads to self-reflection, awakening, renewed sense of self and purpose, desire to change oneself or one's attitudes? What about necessary suffering in childbirth, battle, fitness training, or non-physical ways such as hard study or emotional pain?

The central point is well-being. In itself, suffering diminishes well-being but given our world is as is there are actions that lead to a degree of suffering that is justified by a greater well-being.

 

[Koldo]

This is a bold conclusion.

Can you give an example of a fact about the world that if known could lead to the conclusion that something, anything, is objectively moral?

 

[Rival]

Therefore...?
I don't quite understand why you are asking those questions. Do you want to debate about what is the better moral system?

The central point is well-being. In itself, suffering diminishes well-being but given our world is as is there are actions that lead to a degree of suffering that is justified by a greater well-being.

Whose wellbeing?

 

[Koldo]

For the same reason that God allows slavery in the OT but it is not practiced by Jews or Christians.

We believe society is better and fairer without it.

Again, if you read my original post I was not saying 'suffering is fine' or 'suffering can never be immoral' - I specifically said I play devil's advocate - take up a position I don't necessarily agree with - to ask probing questions.

On a day to day basis we are totally agreed that most kinds of suffering are morally wrong to inflict upon a person. Whether or not God says so we have consistently used our own feelings and experiences as another benchmark. This is fine. No-one here is arguing against this.

What I am asking, from a philosophical and ethical point of view, is why is suffering morally wrong from an objective point of view? Because objectivity by its nature does not take into account personal feelings, so the baseline we use is mooted and we need to chose another one. The OP specifically addresses objective morality with God. This precludes any personal feeling based system.


Ok.

What role does objective morality serve if you are neither going to act in accordance to it nor support those who do?

 

[Koldo]

Whose wellbeing?

Depends on the moral system, obviously.

 

[Rival]

Can you give an example of a fact about the world that if known could lead to the conclusion that something, anything, is objectively moral?

I think you've missed the point totally.

You would need to be God, that's the whole point.