Objective Morals. Are they any better?

[Raymann]

Personally, I find it ridiculous when a religious person defends their morals as being the better ones.
The main argument a religious person uses to defend this claim is that their morals come from God.
I don't quite understand why a moral coming from God is called "Objective".
Maybe because in the eyes of a religious person God is impartial and has no reason to favor any of the sides, one way or the other.
That's what I think they believe, not sure that is correct.
There is a problem with that logic:
How can the morals from a "Subjective being" be consider "Objective"?
That doesn't make any sense.
That is a semi contradiction to me.
You believe in an unproven God but the morals taught by this unproven God are proven (objective).
I hear that all the time from very educated people who engage in long and intricate discussions trying to corner the opponent in logic traps trying to prove their point.
For the purpose of this discussion:
Subjective means beliefs not proven.
Objective means proven facts.

How are objective morals better than subjective ones?
Are morals from God better than morals from atheists or non-believers?
Any proof of that?
Better for whom, just believers?

 

[Sunstone]

For the purpose of this discussion:
Subjective means beliefs not proven.
Objective means proven facts.

Those definitions of "subjective" and "objective" strike me as lame, inadequate, and wholly misleading. Try again.

Seriously, give it another try. You're bright. You can do better.

 

[Sunstone]

The notion that there exist an "objective set of morals" is at best an hypothesis -- and not one for which there is much compelling evidence. Yet -- to be sure -- the notion does have some wee bit of evidence in favor of it.

The evidence in favor of the notion chiefly consists in the widespread, cross-cultural acceptance of certain values and/or morals. For instance, everywhere you go in the world, lying in order to protect an innocent member of your in group from coming to harm at the hands of someone from an out-group is almost always considered moral. There are numerous such "universals" or "near universals" -- which somewhat suggests there might be objective morals. However, there are a number of hurdles you would have to overcome before you could consider that bit of evidence compelling.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Personally, I find it ridiculous when a religious person defends their morals as being the better ones.
The main argument a religious person uses to defend this claim is that their morals come from God.
I don't quite understand why a moral coming from God is called "Objective".
Maybe because in the eyes of a religious person God is impartial and has no reason to favor any of the sides, one way or the other.
That's what I think they believe, not sure that is correct.
There is a problem with that logic:
How can the morals from a "Subjective being" be consider "Objective"?
That doesn't make any sense.
That is a semi contradiction to me.
You believe in an unproven God but the morals taught by this unproven God are proven (objective).
I hear that all the time from very educated people who engage in long and intricate discussions trying to corner the opponent in logic traps trying to prove their point.
For the purpose of this discussion:
Subjective means beliefs not proven.
Objective means proven facts.

How are objective morals better than subjective ones?
Are morals from God better than morals from atheists or non-believers?
Any proof of that?
Better for whom, just believers?

Each spiritual teaching or Religious texts has its own set of moral guidelines, or some call them rules, but the reason these guidelines are there is to steer the follower in the direction of awakening to the wisdom the spiritual teaching contains. Do the guidelines look somewhat similar? yes, they do. But you will experience the Abrahamic religions have more of a Rule-based system then Asiatic religions/spiritual paths.
When following the morality within a religion we become wiser and understand the teachings better, and can incorporate them into our daily life, knowing that we do less and less wrong.

Then you have the people who claim to follow a certain religion, but one sees that they have no morals at all, this means they have not understood the teaching that they should undertake.
A reason for this can be that they still clinging to their ego and do not wish to change themself to become better human beings.
The other fault many religious people do is to push their own "moral" onto others, this is of course not a right way to do it, especially if the person who pushes others do not follow the guidelines themself, And if someone is pushing, it can mean that they do not accept others way of thinking (something unfortunately many religious people seem to think)

Can Atheists be good moral people without following a religion or spiritual path? Yes, of course, they can. Religion does not own good morals. But unfortunately some Atheists seem to have no form of morality, and when they meet someone who wishes to teach them, it becomes ugly and heated discussion happens. And more often then not, the Religious person get slammed down and spoken badly about, and their religion get beaten to death by the angry Atheists.

 

[Sunstone]

Objective means proven facts.

Really? If that is so, then you will have no problem coming up with a non-subjective means of proving "objective facts". Please do tell me what that means is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, where do they come from? Ethics and morals are from the society. What society approves is the 'objective moral'. God is human imagination.

 

[Augustus]

How can the morals from a "Subjective being" be consider "Objective"?
That doesn't make any sense.
That is a semi contradiction to me.
You believe in an unproven God but the morals taught by this unproven God are proven (objective).

Seems to be missing the point.

They are arguing from the axioms that a) God objectively exists and b) they know (some of) His views on morality

It's not a contradiction if you believe God exists (which they do) and that (some of) His morals are knowable.

Rejecting these axioms is different from their beliefs being contradictory.

 

[Augustus]

How are objective morals better than subjective ones?
Are morals from God better than morals from atheists or non-believers?

The purported source of the morals is not really important, what matters is the real world efficacy of the moral code.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Seems to be missing the point.

They are arguing from the axioms that a) God objectively exists and b) they know (some of) His views on morality

It's not a contradiction if you believe God exists (which they do) and that (some of) His morals are knowable.

Rejecting these axioms is different from their beliefs being contradictory.

I was trying to work out how to word this, no I don't need to.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The purported source of the morals is not really important, what matters is the real world efficacy of the moral code.

Not all would agree with that though...
(I do, of course, but still...)

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Seems to be missing the point.

They are arguing from the axioms that a) God objectively exists and b) they know (some of) His views on morality

It's not a contradiction if you believe God exists (which they do) and that (some of) His morals are knowable.

Rejecting these axioms is different from their beliefs being contradictory.

Though wouldn't that mean that their morality is subject to their interpretation of the scribe's interpretation of God's POV?

 

[Augustus]

Though wouldn't that mean that their morality is subject to their interpretation of the scribe's interpretation of God's POV?

Depends on one's theology. Many people believe interpretation is guided by God. They may also believe only a few core moral principles have been objectively revealed and the rest needs to be worked out to the best of their ability

Also the objective morality would still exist, even if they couldn't interpret it correctly.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The notion that there exist an "objective set of morals" is at best an hypothesis -- and not one for which there is much compelling evidence. Yet -- to be sure -- the notion does have some wee bit of evidence in favor of it.

The evidence in favor of the notion chiefly consists in the widespread, cross-cultural acceptance of certain values and/or morals. For instance, everywhere you go in the world, lying in order to protect an innocent member of your in group from coming to harm at the hands of someone from an out-group is almost always considered moral. There are numerous such "universals" or "near universals" -- which somewhat suggests there might be objective morals. However, there are a number of hurdles you would have to overcome before you could consider that bit of evidence compelling.

To me, that suggests that there are some moral values that could enhance group survival, not that these might be inherently objective.

 

[Sunstone]

To me, that suggests that there are some moral values that could enhance group survival, not that these might be inherently objective.

On what rational grounds or basis would you prefer one explanation over the other? Just curious.

 

[Mock Turtle]

On what rational grounds or basis would you prefer one explanation over the other? Just curious.

How could you prove that they were objective perhaps?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Depends on one's theology. Many people believe interpretation is guided by God. They may also believe only a few core moral principles have been objectively revealed and the rest needs to be worked out to the best of their ability

Also the objective morality would still exist, even if they couldn't interpret it correctly.

I can understand the second one somewhat, though I disagree with the notion that God existing = God's morals are objective. Or that anything in theology considering its diversity likely has guidance. But they obviously wouldn't see it that way.

 

[Mock Turtle]

My problem with any objective morality, and essentially those coming from religions, is that as I see it, they attempt to 'fix' some problem with humanity - which they do, but not in the 'broken' sense. They tend to fix our morality at some point in time, or anchor it, such that we have all sorts of problems when our societies seemingly don't conform to how they apparently should behave, but just develop naturally (or evolve) as everything seems to do. So we have conflict because a particular religious view wants us all to behave a certain way, and of course if we don't we are all sinners, but it could just be that that is perfectly natural. One could think of many examples here - which I will leave you to fill in.

 

[Shad]

Personally, I find it ridiculous when a religious person defends their morals as being the better ones.
The main argument a religious person uses to defend this claim is that their morals come from God.
I don't quite understand why a moral coming from God is called "Objective".

It is due to the definition of God as perfect. Evil is considered a flaw thus not an attribute of God. Interpretation of acts or lack of as evil or imperfect are made in error as human lack scope of the larger picture and are imperfect.

The larger question is if perfection exists outside an abstract form.

Maybe because in the eyes of a religious person God is impartial and has no reason to favor any of the sides, one way or the other.

By definition God is perfect thus impartial. God's judgement is perfect as well. There are only two side; right or wrong.

How can the morals from a "Subjective being" be consider "Objective"?

The belief in God subjective. Which set of moral code(s) are objective within the God concept be it source or logic are debatable. Perfection is tautological. So if there is a perfect being it can not have subjective views nor make any errors.

You believe in an unproven God but the morals taught by this unproven God are proven (objective).

The break down is which source thus set of morals in the case of religion is true. This is separate from the greater concept of objective God based morality.

How are objective morals better than subjective ones?

By definition.

Are morals from God better than morals from atheists or non-believers?

By definition, yes.

Any proof of that?

It is tautological. No proof is required.

Better for whom, just believers?

For all by definition.

Again keep in mind that I am separating the concept of God and God based morality from specific religious moral codes claiming to be true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But unfortunately some Atheists seem to have no form of morality

Because all theists are outstanding citizens with impeccable morals?
How about: "...some humans seem to have no form of morality"?

 

[littleme]

I don't think being a religious person makes you more moral than a person with no religion like myself.