The argument that God provides a basis for objective moral values is bad

[Rick O'Shez]

I've been watching a lot of religious debates recently, and often times people like William Lane Craig and Frank Turek will argue that without God there are no moral "oughts"; they claim that objective moral values do not exist without God because death is final and everyone ends up in the same place. They assume that without God you can't say whether anything is right or wrong--its just particles in motion.

I've seen some debates on here, and to me the arguments are actually very weak, it looks like pure theological convolution, angels on pin heads. God didn't make man or morals, man made God and morals. It baffles why anyone would even attempt to argue against this obvious truth.

 

[serp777]

Rape is wrong because we can see the effects it has on both men and women. (Yes men do get raped.) And those effects are known to be detrimental. It is a deeply traumatizing act, regardless of what society says about it. Hell regardless of what any Deity says about it. We can clearly demonstrate trust issues, psychological trauma, (sometimes physical) fear, PTSD, increase in chances of suicidal tendencies, increase in chances of depression and an increase in chances of developing very low self esteem inherent in survivors of rape (again BOTH men and women.) Thus we as human beings, regardless of society, regardless of religion, regardless of belief can say that raping someone is wrong and to say it is right is to completely disregard human experience, emotions and effects.

Sorry just had to say that. You may continue with your discussion about god and morality or whatever now.

Well that's just an additional reason. Actually its a scientific based explanation that leads us to a different utilitarian calculation. So in many ways our morality should be based on scientific explanations in conjuction with thoughtful reasoning about how to live the best/ most pleasant we can.

 

[Ouroboros]

I would say that "absolute morality" is what society in general is working towards. Our subjective morality is evolving to reach some kind of absolute morality that has not been achieved as of yet. "Objective morality" would not necessarily exist at all because there is a chance that the "absolute morality" doesn't exist until we discover it. In other words, the idea of absolute morality might be a human invention occurring only when we figure everything out.

I'd say morality is by definition objective. Morality has to do with each person's behavior in society, in the group of people, and how the group accepts the behavior. Objective is the word that describes something that is not subjective. It's not up to the person's own need, greed, wants, desires to base his morality, but rather it's based on the community--which is an objective entity essentially.

One analogy I was thinking of here earlier is traffic laws. There are countries without traffic laws. Everyone drives on either side and do whatever they want. Higher chance of accidents, traffic jams, etc. Not bad for society. Driving by subjective rules. Then you have UK, where they drive on the left side. Objectively, everyone has to obey that rule, or there are accidents and people get hurt, so for the greater good, everyone gives up their subjective wants and obey. Same with US, but driving on the right side. Either one is right, because they both produce safer driving conditions. Left or right side doesn't matter, but they're objective rules that everyone agrees to obey regardless of subjective wants, for the greater good. Morality is like that. If there is none, society is a mess. With it, it's better and safer, but there's no universal morality except, but where moral code exists, it's an objective code.

 

[Ouroboros]

Thanks, that is a common yet regrettable confusion.

Yup, it is, and personally, I trip on it constantly.

 

[leibowde84]

I'd say morality is by definition objective. Morality has to do with each person's behavior in society, in the group of people, and how the group accepts the behavior. Objective is the word that describes something that is not subjective. It's not up to the person's own need, greed, wants, desires to base his morality, but rather it's based on the community--which is an objective entity essentially.

One analogy I was thinking of here earlier is traffic laws. There are countries without traffic laws. Everyone drives on either side and do whatever they want. Higher chance of accidents, traffic jams, etc. Not bad for society. Driving by subjective rules. Then you have UK, where they drive on the left side. Objectively, everyone has to obey that rule, or there are accidents and people get hurt, so for the greater good, everyone gives up their subjective wants and obey. Same with US, but driving on the right side. Either one is right, because they both produce safer driving conditions. Left or right side doesn't matter, but they're objective rules that everyone agrees to obey regardless of subjective wants, for the greater good. Morality is like that. If there is none, society is a mess. With it, it's better and safer, but there's no universal morality except, but where moral code exists, it's an objective code.

Objective morality, in this sense, is not just outside of the individual. It must exist on its own apart from community or the individual. Being communal does not make it objective, as it is still dependent on the changing feelings of the community. So, your argument seems to point at the notion that morality is always subjective to the feelings of the society in question. I agree, btw.

 

[viole]

Desperation is always a hinderance of moral development. And, of course, hunger can cause desperation. What does that have to do with this discussion though? There have been tons of constant struggles with hunger, but our general morality has, without a doubt, improved nontheless.

Without a doubt? There is very little without a doubt, without a doubt.

Emotionally, I agree with you. Of course.

But I cannot prove it. Which makes me suspicious about the objectivity of my position.

How would you convince a time traveller coming from the far past that our morality is more advanced than hers?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Without a doubt? There is very little without a doubt, without a doubt.

Emotionally, I agree with you. Of course.

But I cannot prove it. Which makes me suspicious about the objectivity of my position.

How would you convince a time traveller coming from the far past that our morality is more advanced than hers?

Ciao

- viole

A time traveler from the past would have a morality not as advanced as ours, so it would be difficult. It would be the same as trying to convince a three year old that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are uncool. We would be coming from uncommon ground.

 

[Ouroboros]

Objective morality, in this sense, is not just outside of the individual. It must exist on its own apart from community or the individual. Being communal does not make it objective, as it is still dependent on the changing feelings of the community.

Actually, the way I see it is a communal thing is an objective thing. Subjective is relating to one person. Objective is to something outside a person.

Law is considered objective.

For instance:

What is OBJECTIVE?
1. The use of available resources to achieve a target(the objective), within a specified timeframe. A collection of goals is usually termed as an objective.Policy appraisals and performance appraisals are based on objectives, which can be considered to be the foundation for planning and strategic activities. 2. Neutral: An unbiased attitude or opinion that is based on factual evidence.


Law Dictionary: What is OBJECTIVE? definition of OBJECTIVE (Black's Law Dictionary)

What is OBJECTIVE? definition of OBJECTIVE (Black's Law Dictionary)

I especially like the part "Neutral: An unbiased attitude or opinion that is based on factual evidence."

I think morality can be kind'a in that category. It's unbiased. But also, above there it also says "A collection of goals", which suggests a group of subjective attitudes, but not a single one or single person's goals.

When something exists outside and independent of the community, I'd rather call it absolute or universal, and not use the term objective, because of how subjective/objective plays out. That was my point earlier.

So, your argument seems to point at the notion that morality is always subjective to the feelings of the society in question. I agree, btw.

Yes. It is. But as such, it is objective to the individual (even if we can agree it is "subjective" to the community).

 

[Ouroboros]

Well that's just an additional reason. Actually its a scientific based explanation that leads us to a different utilitarian calculation.

I see a problem with it though. The utility, happiness, is not the same all over the world. One big difference between west and middle-east is that in the west, we value personal freedom, ownership, independence, pursuit of personal happiness, etc, while in the middle-east, pleasing God is what they believe makes them happy. In the west, we think that if we're successful and happy, God is somehow happy with us. Something like that. Essentially, I feel that there's no common definition of what utility is supposed to be, scientifically speaking. In our society today, it seems like longevity and health is what makes people happy, but that's not necessarily true. A person can live a short life, and in poor health, and still feel very happy with life, perhaps more than a person living 100 years but never does anything fun. It's like issues with coffee, alcohol, etc. Why can't a person enjoy those things and be happy, even if it makes one's life shorter? Why is a long boring life better?

So in many ways our morality should be based on scientific explanations in conjuction with thoughtful reasoning about how to live the best/ most pleasant we can.

I think reasoning is the main part. Science can only bring in the facts of aspects of things, but ultimately, it's our reasoning, values, culture, ideology, etc that guides what is right or wrong.

 

[SomeRandom]

Well that's just an additional reason. Actually its a scientific based explanation that leads us to a different utilitarian calculation. So in many ways our morality should be based on scientific explanations in conjuction with thoughtful reasoning about how to live the best/ most pleasant we can.

I don't know if we should base morality on Science. Science can inform one of facts. But Science tends to be cold and emotionless because it sort of has to be. But if Science stands up and says, hey people with cerebral palsy have no quality of life and we should just euthanize them out of mercy. Through the cold hard facts that is Biology, this stance would be justifiable, agreeable and Scientifically accurate. So if we based morality on Science alone, then yeah we'd go round euthanizing people with Cerebral Palsy. But what if a person who has that condition flat out tells you that they want to live anyway? That they would rather live their life to the best of their ability regardless? What should you morally do? Science says that it's better they die short and without pain. What should you listen.

 

[ether-ore]

I've been watching a lot of religious debates recently, and often times people like William Lane Craig and Frank Turek will argue that without God there are no moral "oughts"; they claim that objective moral values do not exist without God because death is final and everyone ends up in the same place. They assume that without God you can't say whether anything is right or wrong--its just particles in motion.

But this argument is awful for several reasons. For starters, this argument pretends that people aren't choosing a morality and that it is absolutely determined by what Christopher Hitchens would call a celestial dictatorship. But that just depends on your society, culture, interpretation, mood, etc. You select the God and interpretation that aligns with your moral values and so its really no different than an atheist selecting their moral values to work best in society. So you can't say whether anything is right or wrong either because you would have an entirely different morality in bronze age Palestine, or if you grew up in North Korea. If morality is relative anyways, then the concept of moral oughts are ultimately fallacious; its all a matter of perspective and interpretation regardless if you believe or dont which really means the difference is moot.

As WLC would ask, "How do you know rape is wrong?"

I would say its wrong because a society of empowered, free women is much more effective and pleasant, and rape is a sinister attack on that. WLC would reply, but how do you know that's wrong? You're just responding to societal pressures and laws as well as evolutionary changes. I would then rebuttal him by saying that he's also just responding to social pressures because if you lived in bronze age Palestine then its very possible you would think rape is okay since you'd fallaciously believe women are inferior. Morality is relative whether you believe in religion or not in conclusion, and therefore means objective morality doesn't exist. All that exists is a secular, utilitarian analysis of society that tells us how to create the most effective, pleasant society as possible. Most religious people adopt secular standards anyways because you certainly wouldn't want to take morals from Leviticus, or the old testament, and or exodus.

I happen to agree that an objective moral law is not possible without God. My feeling is that as people use their agency and ignore God's law, they then create rules which are particular to an individual (subjective), or particular to a culture (relative). Come judgment day however, all will be judged according to the objective law.

 

[Ouroboros]

Come judgment day however, all will be judged according to the objective law.

So what is the objective law? For it to be useful, it has to be specific. Rape was mentioned before, is it objectively wrong according to God? If you think it is, how do you know?

 

[Cephus]

Morality is objective, but certainly not because some deity validates it.

How do you know? Demonstrate any case of objective morality please.

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you know? Demonstrate any case of objective morality please.

I think we handled this in some other threads, Cephus, but in a nutshell morality is objective because it is constrained by the need to be, of course, moral. Which is to say, to support and further the health and sustainability of sensitive and sentient beings.

What that means in practice will vary a lot according to the circunstances, but it is not "freely chosen".

 

[jchristopher]

What would lead you to believe morality is relative?

 

[Cephus]

I think we handled this in some other threads, Cephus, but in a nutshell morality is objective because it is constrained by the need to be, of course, moral. Which is to say, to support and further the health and sustainability of sensitive and sentient beings.

What that means in practice will vary a lot according to the circunstances, but it is not "freely chosen".

But you're simply asserting criteria which are, like it or not, subjective. You're just making up a definition for morality instead of showing that such a thing exists independently of your whims. That violates the very definition of "objective", which is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

 

[LuisDantas]

But you're simply asserting criteria which are, like it or not, subjective.

Hardly!

The personal perception and expression of morality is, of course, bound by the characterstics of the person itself.

What is ultimately moral or not is difficult to fully delimiter, mainly because our data and our reasoning proccesses are of course finite.

None of that denies that morality itself is objective, albeit often difficult to delimit.

You're just making up a definition for morality instead of showing that such a thing exists independently of your whims.

Are you paying attention? Of course I am "making up" a definition for morality. That is what definitions are.

Try to understand it and you will see that it is not that hard.

That violates the very definition of "objective", which is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

Nope. As already pointed out by Ouroboros earlier in this thread, you are confusing "absolute" with "objective".

 

[psychoslice]

I feel sorry for people who believe we need a God to be good, any intelligent person knows that what is good from bad. If you have to be good because some god told you to, then you need to take a good look at yourself, but then if people need a man in the sky looking down at them and judging everything they do, then these probably need a god, who knows what they would do if they didn't have their god. Its sad that there are people like that, but that's life I suppose.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To me, that line of reasoning fails because God's morality would be just as subjective as anyone else's.

 

[jchristopher]

I feel sorry for people who believe we need a God to be good, any intelligent person knows that what is good from bad. If you have to be good because some god told you to, then you need to take a good look at yourself, but then if people need a man in the sky looking down at them and judging everything they do, then these probably need a god, who knows what they would do if they didn't have their god. Its sad that there are people like that, but that's life I suppose.

How would you define good?