Objective Morality Without God

[Koldo]

If an omnimax God created the world then he creates the rules. It's like a game.

Morality would be like a game mechanic , and, even if the players can't directly view what is happening under the bonnet, there would be objective way to maximise this, as in a game.

The only reason the concept of morality would even exist is because the God made it so, and there could be no morality apart from this.

What does it even mean for God to create morality though?

For example, if God creates a planet, this planet exists as a discrete object in the universe. And therefore this planet can be, in principle, experienced through our senses. If God creates a feeling, this feeling can also be experienced even if it is not a discrete object, it exists as long as it is being experienced internally.

If God creates objective morality, in what way does it exist? Just like a rule? But rules lack objective existence, they exist in the mental realm. (For further reference, check conceptualism.)

 

[Koldo]

Yes and no. We can come across situations where our authority seems to be saying X and that is not how we think and feel about the situation.

Meaning you are thinking all by yourself and reconsidering whether to do what the said authority told you to do?

 

[Brian2]

Meaning you are thinking all by yourself and reconsidering whether to do what the said authority told you to do?

Yes of course.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It does once you experience quite a bit of it. It looks like you haven't experienced enough.

I have been friends with @Rival for years now. Please don't make such assumptions, because they can be more hurtful and damaging to others than you might think.

 

[Augustus]

What does it even mean for God to create morality though?

The same as it means for any designer to create a feature or characteristic in their design.

If we are assuming an omnimax God really did exist, they created the world and everything in it, including human thought and the ability to conceptualise things in terms of right and wrong.

If God creates objective morality, in what way does it exist? Just like a rule? But rules lack objective existence, they exist in the mental realm. (For further reference, check conceptualism.)

It would exist in the same way that maths exists, or the rules of football exist.

 

[Koldo]

The same as it means for any designer to create a feature or characteristic in their design.

If we are assuming an omnimax God really did exist, they created the world and everything in it, including human thought and the ability to conceptualise things in terms of right and wrong.



It would exist in the same way that maths exists, or the rules of football exist.

But neither rules nor numbers have an objective existence.

"But rules lack objective existence, they exist in the mental realm. (For further reference, check conceptualism.)"

 

[Augustus]

But neither rules nor numbers have an objective existence.

"But rules lack objective existence, they exist in the mental realm. (For further reference, check conceptualism.)"

In standard maths 2+ 2 is objectively 4.

You are switching different uses of the term objective.

In a video game there is an objectively best was to get the optimal result by interacting with the underlying mechanics that were written into the code.

An omnimax creator can create similar mechanics in his creation.

 

[Koldo]

In standard maths 2+ 2 is objectively 4.

You are switching different uses of the term objective.

How are you using the term 'objective'?
Define it.

In a video game there is an objectively best was to get the optimal result by interacting with the underlying mechanics that were written into the code.

An omnimax creator can create similar mechanics in his creation.

How do you figure what is the optimal result in any given game?

 

[osgart]

The mental realm exists or no one is having any thoughts, and objectivity wouldn't exist either. If the mental realm didn't exist then critical thinking would come to nothing true. If the mental realm exists then there must be objective truths about it.

 

[Augustus]

How are you using the term 'objective'?
Define it.

Not influenced by personal beliefs or opinions.

How are you defining it?

How do you figure what is the optimal result in any given game?

The point is there are optimal results as there are a finite number of possibilities towards a certain goal formulated by the creator with specific parameters.

Whether you are aware of them or can identify them is beside the point.

 

[Koldo]

Not influenced by personal beliefs or opinions.

How are you defining it?

Mind-independent existence, as in realism.
Would you say objective morality is mind-independent?

The point is there are optimal results as there are a finite number of possibilities towards a certain goal formulated by the creator with specific parameters.

Whether you are aware of them or can identify them is beside the point.

I mean: What makes something an optimal result in the first place?

 

[LuisDantas]

Objective morality seems to exist, but it is certainly not workable if obtained by some pursuit of sets of rules.

Why? Because morality is not obedience, and in fact morality can't afford to be restrained by simple obedience. Obedience is just obedience. It is a hindrance that makes the development of morality impossible.

On the other hand, we must be careful with our understandings of what is even meant by "objective morality". Morality can't exist if it can not inform decisions, value judgements or choices of some kind. And what is it supposed to be informed about? By definition, there must be some sort of subject to be evaluated by a moral perspective. By any moral perspective. In that sense, morality requires a subject. If that makes morality subjective and therefore not objetive, then "objetive morality" is a direct contradition of terms and can not exist even hypothetically.

 

[Koldo]

The mental realm exists or no one is having any thoughts,...

No one is saying otherwise.

and objectivity wouldn't exist either.

I have no idea why you are saying this though. It is not that I disagree per se, I just don't understand where you are coming from.

If the mental realm didn't exist then critical thinking would come to nothing true. If the mental realm exists then there must be objective truths about it.

Depends on what you mean by 'objective truths'.

 

[osgart]

No one is saying otherwise.



I have no idea why you are saying this though. It is not that I disagree per se, I just don't understand where you are coming from.



Depends on what you mean by 'objective truths'.

I'm just saying!

Morality has cause and effect implications. There are principles, meanings that come out to be objectively true regarding morality. Virtues and vices. There are good reasons to accept virtues, and good reasons to reject vices. Morality has nothing to do with preferences, and tastes, and truly good moral reasons never change because of wants or desires. So the whole world could choose vices and humanity would certainly destroy itself by ignoring objective moral truth.

I don't see objective moral truth as implying the existence of God though.

Sorry for my misunderstanding your comment about the mental realm. It's a good way to establish the argument that there are objective moral truths when people regard that there is the mental realm.

 

[Augustus]

Mind-independent existence, as in realism.
Would you say objective morality is mind-independent?

If it were deliberately created by an omnimax God, yes it would be independent of the human mind.

It would be a designed feature of the world the God built.

I mean: What makes something an optimal result in the first place?

Depends on the game. For example, in a driving game, complete the lap in the shortest possible time.

 

[Koldo]

If it were deliberately created by an omnimax God, yes it would be independent of the human mind.

It would be a designed feature of the world the God built.

If it is mind-independent, in what sense does it exist? For rules and numbers are not mind-independent.

Depends on the game. For example, in a driving game, complete the lap in the shortest possible time.

Why would that be the optimal result rather than winning the race, for example?

 

[Augustus]

If it is mind-independent, in what sense does it exist? For rules and numbers are not mind-independent.

That is because we don't start with the default assumption that an omnimax god designed them purposely to exist.

We are assuming God invented them, thus God is mind independent and thus his actions are mind independent.

They are a feature of the design, same as any other feature of any other design.

Why would that be the optimal result rather than winning the race, for example?

Because it would include winning the race and would be a higher level of performance than simply winning.

 

[dybmh]

In Classical Monotheism God is without emotion

In Tanach God's fury is described, isn't it? And there's a case to be made that God is described as pleased with the offerings? Aren't these emotions?

 

[Rival]

In Tanach God's fury is described, isn't it? And there's a case to be made that God is described as pleased with the offerings? Aren't these emotions?

Yes but these are said to be really how we perceive/experience God and what he did, not how God actually is.

 

[Koldo]

That is because we don't start with the default assumption that an omnimax god designed them purposely to exist.

We are assuming God invented them, thus God is mind independent and thus his actions are mind independent.

They are a feature of the design, same as any other feature of any other design.

Rules and numbers are not mind-independent regardless of whether we assume that an omnimax god designed them to exist. I have no idea why you would assume that to be a relevant factor.

Because it would include winning the race and would be a higher level of performance than simply winning.

That's not always the case. Senna secured the championship by crashing into Prost's car in the F1 1990 season, for example.