1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Objective morality

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by KlLLUMINATI, Apr 25, 2012.

  1. KlLLUMINATI

    KlLLUMINATI Account Closed

    Messages:
    5
    how do use objective morality to show evidence of God:)
     
  2. PolyHedral

    PolyHedral Superabacus Mystic

    Messages:
    6,333
    You don't, because it does not exist.
     
  3. mycorrhiza

    mycorrhiza Ukulele player

    Messages:
    1,439
    Even if objective morality did exist, it would not be proof of God.

    The common argument is that either something is right because God says it's right or God says that it's right because it is objectively right. If the first case is true, then morality is subjective, as it is just the opinion of God. If the second case is true, then objective morality is beyond God and thus doesn't need God to exist.


    I would say that objective morality does not exist, as proven by history.
     
  4. Quintessence

    Quintessence The Elementalist Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    9,389
    Religion:
    Druidic Witch
    How does history prove this? It seems to me it only suggests a human inability to grasp objective morality.
     
  5. The Doors of Perception

    The Doors of Perception New Member

    Messages:
    7,580
    Objective morality doesn't really exist. We could set up objective morals using logic, but people aren't really into being intelligent these days. Either way, it would not / does not prove the existence of God.
     
  6. Me Myself

    Me Myself Back to my username

    Messages:
    18,748
    Nothing is 100% objective.
     
  7. PolyHedral

    PolyHedral Superabacus Mystic

    Messages:
    6,333
    Logic doesn't tell you what you want.
    Except that? ;)
     
  8. Me Myself

    Me Myself Back to my username

    Messages:
    18,748
    exactly ;)
     
  9. Me Myself

    Me Myself Back to my username

    Messages:
    18,748
    If objective morality exists, then biblical God is in seeeeeeeeeeeerious troubles.
     
  10. The Doors of Perception

    The Doors of Perception New Member

    Messages:
    7,580
    What do you mean?
     
  11. PolyHedral

    PolyHedral Superabacus Mystic

    Messages:
    6,333
    Logic can be used to decide what the best way of achieving what you want is, but it cannot tell you what goal to work towards. (Except in service of a bigger goal.) In that way, even formally derived morality is dependent on what is considered "good" to begin with.
     
  12. vepurusg

    vepurusg New Member

    Messages:
    233
    When one sets up a coherent concept of objective morality using logic, then it does exist. Not as a substance, but as a concept.

    It is as true as π, i, or e, or any other valid concept in logic or mathematics.

    Objective morality exists, but that is not to say that violating it has personally negative consequences beyond the tautological, unless we put them into place ourselves.

    Yes, and in fact, as derived directly from logic and the necessary ontology of morality, it yields proof that the notion of such a god is morally false.


    This is not strictly correct with regards to the infinite/transcendent concept of modern divinity (particularly due to the logical breakdown that must occur to even postulate such an entity).

    It's true for any limited and naturalistic concept of deity, though.
     
  13. The Doors of Perception

    The Doors of Perception New Member

    Messages:
    7,580
    "The Good" of ethics can be found logically.
     
  14. InformedIgnorance

    InformedIgnorance Do you 'know' or believe?

    Messages:
    3,740
    Let us suppose there WAS an objective morality, would it even be possible to determine? There are differences in our understandings of an objective morality, so at the absolute least our perception of objective morality is subjective, i.e. it is a subjective perception of morality.

    However to formulate a (subjective perception of an) objective morality we must determine an objective standard defined and described by characteristic measurements and benchmarks by which to compare events and outcomes (being those things that can be determined 'moral' or 'immoral' through application of this standard) - I am ignoring the possibility of determining if PEOPLE are moral or immoral for now as this would be an even more complex field. Identifying which characteristics to measure and the specific benchmarks for those characteristics in determining morality as well as any system of combining characteristics (such as weighting and so forth) can deliver an 'objective' system but that objective system is founded on the subjective interpretations that went into determining the standard in the first place (for example justifying the selection of particular characteristics as opposed to others). The created standard may be 'objective' in a sense, but there is nothing to suggest that it is superior to other possible 'objective' standards...

    Even those 'objective' standards of morality in the end are constructions based on subjectivity - with no credible basis by which to proclaim their universality.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2012
  15. vepurusg

    vepurusg New Member

    Messages:
    233
    This can be non-arbitrarily derived by considering only non-innate goals, eliminating inconsistent/impossible goals, and excluding chaos in favor of coherence.

    The first exclusion makes the concept relevant (instead of meaningless), the second makes it logical/real, and the third makes it consistent.


    This is not true. See my brief explanation above.

    In order for a concept to have meaning, e.g. "objective morality" it must distinguish between what it is, and what it is not. This negates fundamentally innate goals (like hedonism).

    Most other "possible" goals are negated by the impossibility of coherently fulfilling them due to internal contradictions, and contradictions with the logic of moral utility.

    The only ones that aren't are those of random/chaotic morality, which is inconsistent by nature, and one remaining coherent moral basis- that of consideration of interest.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2012
  16. InformedIgnorance

    InformedIgnorance Do you 'know' or believe?

    Messages:
    3,740
    I have read your explanation and subsequently, subjectively, I do not agree with it. :p

    There is a way to establish a set of concepts in the way that you have discussed, however there is nothing to suggest that such a set describes some universal, objective ethical framework. Instead your reference to a concept rather than 'substance' is interesting (particularly to an ignostic such as myself) however as I mentioned in my post, even if one DID exist, we have no means by which to ascertain it without resorting to subjectivity.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2012
  17. vepurusg

    vepurusg New Member

    Messages:
    233
    Ah, yes there is.

    In the same way that:

    π = 3.141592...etc.
    And
    π ≠ 2

    Words have meanings; indeed, they are tied to concepts and they are the means by which we categorize and comprehend concepts.

    A word only serves its purpose in so far as it defines something which is distinct from another thing, or anything else.

    It's why "god" is incoherent; it's not properly defined. The lack of meaning is contageous, and logically demolishes the coherence of any sentence it is placed in.

    In so far as we assume a concept of objective morality exists, we must assume it is coherent and consistent (otherwise it certainly does not exist).
    In so far as it is consistent and coherent, we must acknowledge that it exists (as a concept- all things that are consistent and coherent do exist as concepts, even if they are not tangible/material things).

    This, by the process of elimination, reduces the possibilities down to one.


    Of course we do- process of elimination. Eliminate all that is impossible, incoherent, and inconsistent, and we are left with what is consistent, possible, coherent- a legitimate concept of objective morality.
     
  18. InformedIgnorance

    InformedIgnorance Do you 'know' or believe?

    Messages:
    3,740
    I am an Ignostic, I am completely aware of what you are saying given its similarity to theological noncognitivism and for the very same reasons I am forced to say this: there are potentially more than one consistent and coherent set of statements, which could be used to describe a concept of 'objective morality'... with no way to determine which of these potential concepts is 'correct'.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2012
  19. vepurusg

    vepurusg New Member

    Messages:
    233
    I know, which is why I mentioned it.

    If that were the case, so would it be. However, it turns out that it is not the case, once all of the eliminating is done. The possibilities are narrowed down to precisely one (unlike that of deity).
     
  20. InformedIgnorance

    InformedIgnorance Do you 'know' or believe?

    Messages:
    3,740
    Really now? I would love to see that process of eliminating of all possible attempts to describe an objective morality being reduced to a single one.
    (No I am not being sarcastic - I would love to see it done - I just do not believe it can be)
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted