Objective Morality Without God

[Augustus]

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.

That's like saying the mechanics of a video game are "not mind independent".

The God is not your mind. It exists regardless of whether or not there are humans to perceive it. What it creates exists whether or not you are there to perceive it.

That is mind-independent.

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

Senna winning the race would have scored more points and also won the championship. Senna would have 1 more race win in his career stats and would thus have been more successful.

That would be better performance.

 

[Koldo]

That's like saying the mechanics of a video game are "not mind independent".

It's actually more like saying the terms of service of said video game are not mind independent.

The God is not your mind. It exists regardless of whether or not there are humans to perceive it. What it creates exists whether or not you are there to perceive it.

That is mind-independent.

In what way does it exist though?
Do you agree that morality is an abstract concept? If it is an abstract concept, how can it exist independent from the minds?

Senna winning the race would have scored more points and also won the championship. Senna would have 1 more race win in his career stats and would thus have been more successful.

That would be better performance.

By your standards, of course. Crashing his car into Prost's made it a fairly more memorable win to many people. Who has the authority to decree what is the better standard and why?

 

[Augustus]

It's actually more like saying the terms of service of said video game are not mind independent.

The ToS aren't a designed feature that relate to interactions between characters and the world they exist in (ToS is also a written document).

In what way does it exist though?
Do you agree that morality is an abstract concept? If it is an abstract concept, how can it exist independent from the minds?

Do the mechanics of a video game exist given that someone created them with a specific purpose?

You are not thinking in terms of the world and everything in it (including human consciousness and morality) being a designed 'product'.

Everything in this world is mind-independent as a video game is mind independent.

By your standards, of course. Crashing his car into Prost's made it a fairly more memorable win to many people. Who has the authority to decree what is the better standard and why?

The omnimax God of course

 

[Koldo]

The ToS aren't a designed feature that relate to interactions between characters and the world they exist in (ToS is also a written document).

They relate to the interaction between two parties that ought to behave in the way they agreed upon by signing the ToS or else face the consequences written on the ToS. It dictates how both parties ought to behave, but it doesn't physically force anyone to behave in any way given way. Just like morality.

Do the mechanics of a video game exist given that someone created them with a specific purpose?

You are not thinking in terms of the world and everything in it (including human consciousness and morality) being a designed 'product'.

Everything in this world is mind-independent as a video game is mind independent.

Are you equating objective morality with the laws of physics? If so, why?

The omnimax God of course

Why? Where's the argument?

 

[Augustus]

Are you equating objective morality with the laws of physics? If so, why?

You have a finite series of actions that can all be evaluated as being better or worse on whatever scale is decided upon by the creator of the scale.

Why? Where's the argument?

You need it spelled out how an omnimax god gets to decide what action is more moral than another?

 

[Koldo]

You have a finite series of actions that can all be evaluated as being better or worse on whatever scale is decided upon by the creator of the scale.

By this reasoning, I can also create a scale myself. What would be the pertinent distinction?

You need it spelled out how an omnimax god gets to decide what action is more moral than another?

Yes. Since I am arguing that morality is not mind independent, I am challenging the notion that an omnimax god has sovereignty over morality, since such power would be logically incoherent and therefore not exist.

 

[dybmh]

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

I'm giving this a lot of thought.

Without emotions, if God is completely unaffected, is it correct to describe rules given by God as morality of any kind? Without emotions, adherence to the rules doesn't matter at all. Follow them / don't follow them, the unaffected God doesn't care? Without caring right and wrong are meaningless?

So, I don't understand how a God without emotions can develop any system of morality.

Even a simple, binary, emotionless rule like: jumping off a cliff results in death. Is death right or wrong? If God is unaffected, it's neither. So the rule is amoral. The unaffected God develops objective amorality?

 

[Rival]

I'm giving this a lot of thought.

Without emotions, if God is completely unaffected, is it correct to describe rules given by God as morality of any kind? Without emotions, adherence to the rules doesn't matter at all. Follow them / don't follow them, the unaffected God doesn't care? Without caring right and wrong are meaningless?

So, I don't understand how a God without emotions can develop any system of morality.

Even a simple, binary, emotionless rule like: jumping off a cliff results in death. Is death right or wrong? If God is unaffected, it's neither. So the rule is amoral. The unaffected God develops objective amorality?

The thing is that only an unaffected God could develop objective morality, as the minute God has emotions the morality is subjective based on these emotions. We can't really say something 'affects' God and must presume the moral directives God gives are for our benefit, not his.

 

[dybmh]

The thing is that only an unaffected God could develop objective morality, as the minute God has emotions the morality is subjective based on these emotions. We can't really say something 'affects' God and must presume the moral directives God gives are for our benefit, not his.

My first thought is that "benefit" has no meaning if God is unaffected. So the presumption seems without basis.

My second thought is that an affected God, a God with emotions, could indeed develop objective morality IF the emotions are universal. If God has emotions and shares / imparts those same emotions with creation, then the rules could still be objective morality?

 

[Rival]

My first thought is that "benefit" has no meaning if God is unaffected. So the presumption seems without basis.

My second thought is that an affected God, a God with emotions, could indeed develop objective morality IF the emotions are universal. If God has emotions and shares those same emotions with creation, then the rules could still be objective morality?

We may all experience the same emotions but we will experience them differently and for different reasons. We would effectively be robots with emotions if you could make it uniform.

No, God is not benefited or affected by anything, since he is pure intellect/mind/nous/spirit etc. He is unchangeable, and emotions are a change in state. For God to be the God of Classical Monotheism he has to be timeless, changeless etc. and this is in conflict with emotions, which are half the basis of subjectivity and change.

hashkafah philosophy - G-d doesn't have emotions? Why? - Mi Yodeya (stackexchange.com)

 

[Koldo]

The thing is that only an unaffected God could develop objective morality, as the minute God has emotions the morality is subjective based on these emotions. We can't really say something 'affects' God and must presume the moral directives God gives are for our benefit, not his.

If there is a certain goal, we can, through knowing all facts, assess what is the best way to achieve that goal. We can know the best actions that would lead towards that goal, assuming we had such a perfect knowledge.

But there are no facts about the world that would inform us what goal we should seek. This is a highly personal and subjective matter.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Don't presume to tell me about my own experience or what meaning it does or doesn't have. You're not the arbiter mentioned above.


The standard here is 'objective'. If God, as Ultimate Moral Arbiter and non-subjective, says something is wrong or right, it is wrong or right whether you find that meaningful or not, whether you understand it or not. The point is that the God has set a standard that is outside of anyone's personal experience, pain or pleasure, or feelings - it's objective.

It's not objective though, because it's subject to God's opinion, apparently.
Adding a god to the equation doesn't solve the subjectivity problem.

 

[Rival]

If there is a certain goal, we can, through knowing all facts, assess what is the best way to achieve that goal. We can know the best actions that would lead towards that goal, assuming we had such a perfect knowledge.

But there are no facts about the world that would inform us what goal we should seek. This is a highly personal and subjective matter.

I'm not sure what this has to do with that I said?

 

[Rival]

It's not objective though, because it's subject to God's opinion, apparently.
Adding a god to the equation doesn't solve the subjectivity problem.

You are assuming God works the same way human minds do and forms opinions. As an omnimax being God doesn't have opinions - he knows everything.

 

[Koldo]

I'm not sure what this has to do with that I said?

You have said and I quote:

"We can't really say something 'affects' God and must presume the moral directives God gives are for our benefit, not his."

What does being for our benefit mean though?
Some might say it is increasing our well-being (happiness) to the utmost. Others might say that it is living in accordance to certain virtues regardless of whether that leads to our utmost well-being. Just to cite two examples.

And even though knowing all the facts about the world could, at least in principle, allows us to behave in a way that leads to actualizing any of those goals... No facts about the world will tell us how to properly interpret what is for "our benefit". No facts will tell us how that abstract concept is to be interpreted. Goals are not based around facts about the world.

 

[Koldo]

You are assuming God works the same way human minds do and forms opinions. As an omnimax being God doesn't have opinions - he knows everything.

But he would have a desire, or however you prefer to call it, for things to be a certain given way. Otherwise, he would never act or would be just a robot. For what would compel one to consciously act if not a desire to change the ways things are? And that desire is highly personal.

 

[Rival]

You have said and I quote:

"We can't really say something 'affects' God and must presume the moral directives God gives are for our benefit, not his."

What does being for our benefit mean though?
Some might say it is increasing our well-being (happiness) to the utmost. Others might say that it is living in accordance to certain virtues regardless of whether that leads to our utmost well-being. Just to cite two examples.

And even though knowing all the facts about the world could, at least in principle, allows us to behave in a way that leads to actualizing any of those goals... No facts about the world will tell us how to properly interpret what is for "our benefit". No facts will tell us how that abstract concept is to be interpreted. Goals are not based around facts about the world.

We don't know. Of what benefit is eating beef but not rabbit? Mutton but not horse? Of what benefit is praying 3 times a day as opposed to 6?

We don't need to know.

 

[Rival]

But he would have a desire, or however you prefer to call it, for things to be a certain given way. Otherwise, he would never act or would be just a robot.

He has perfect knowledge.

You appear to be talking as though you believe God is fully understandable or even somewhat understandable in why and what he does. Good luck with that one.

 

[Koldo]

He has perfect knowledge.

You appear to be talking as though you believe God is fully understandable or even somewhat understandable in why and what he does. Good luck with that one.

I am saying that perfect knowledge in itself doesn't lead to action. Conscious action is necessarily lead by the desire to achieve an end goal. And end goals can not be derived from knowledge alone.

 

[Koldo]

We don't know. Of what benefit is eating beef but not rabbit? Mutton but not horse? Of what benefit is praying 3 times a day as opposed to 6?

We don't need to know.

It is not just that we don't know. It is that there is no answer to that question, for there are multiple ways to interpret what the word 'benefit' might mean. It is a vague word with no specific meaning. It is only after we assign a specific meaning to it, whatever it is, that we can use our knowledge to look for the best way to achieve it.