Why We Cannot Know That Our Morals are Objective

[A Vestigial Mote]

Part of me understands the desire to flesh all this out, take the idea of "morality" to task and get down to the really nitty gritty. But part of me looks at all the arguments, and the logic we attempt to employ against it - but, at its core, how much does "morality" have to do with logic at all?

Morals are the ideas we hold as individuals or as a group that determine what we consider good vs. bad behavior from our own kind. This can vary from person to person, and from group to group - obviously - because that's what happens in reality. Trying to boil down the reasons to be moral or amoral, or trying to box it up and make it cut and dry - even trying to fully understand it - all futile, in my opinion. Reality is always going to be something different than the ideal, logical, fleshed-out "data" on morality.

Even if God exists (specifically citing the Abrahamic God in this case - since many other theistic concepts don't make as bold-faced claims about the objectivity of morality), His version of morality would be subjective at His "higher" level - even if we were to consider His edicts on morality as "objective" at our level of existence. Meaning that He could change what was "moral" at will... and that would have to become our new "objective" morality by default. That part can't be denied - especially not by believers. And especially not when the first of the "objective" laws He laid down for us is, supposedly, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". How is that objective at all? That's what He wants, obviously. Take all of reality into perspective - this realm in which even God himself exists - whatever that encompasses - why would there ever be some "rule" that is a requisite for anything and everything in this realm that specifically has to do with one of the other members of the realm (God)? Automatically not objective.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is an interesting argument to the OP. As it must not be true in order for the OP to be true. Therefore, the OP must argue that the proposition "everything is moral" is objectively false. Thereby, falsifying the OP.

Everything could be subjectively moral...

 

[whirlingmerc]

I would say the 10 commandments reflect the character of God and so are not subjective

but

when we make values resting on man, I agree we lose sight of our subjectivity and like the late Fransis Shafer might say 'America is a nation with its feet firmly planted in air'

 

[Revoltingest]

Objective morals sounds very Ayn Randian.
I thought this was her loopiest idea, but it was
nonetheless interesting way back in the day.

 

[Curious George]

Everything could be subjectively moral...

Everything could be subjectively moral...

That would mean that it was not objectively moral. This was in the same boat according to the OP.

 

[whirlingmerc]

This is a rough draft of some thoughts I’ve been having…

Let’s assume, for the sake of this discussion, that someone tells you, “Do not wear diamonds is an objective moral principle”. By that, they mean that whether or not the principle is moral is NOT determined by individual preference, but rather by some standard that is independent of any individual.

Now, if someone were to tell you that, “Do not wear diamonds is an objective moral principle”, would it not be logically relevant to ask, “How do you know that to be true?”

I have heard someone say that it would not be logically relevant to ask how we can know that such propositions are true.

They (correctly) argued that whether or not a moral principle exists objectively has nothing to do with whether or not we can know that it exists objectively.

But then they went a step further and (incorrectly) argued that because the objective existence of a moral principle has nothing to do with our knowledge that it exists, whether or not we can know that a principle objectively exists is of no relevance or consequence at all.

On the contrary, whether or not we can know that a moral principle objectively exists has great relevance and consequence to any propositions (i.e. truth claims) we make about it.

After all, if I claim to know that the proposition, “Do not wear diamonds is an objective moral principle”, is true, but I also claim there is no method, procedure, or means for knowing that the proposition is true, then I contradict myself. Then how can I know the proposition is true?

Moreover, if I cannot know whether the proposition, “Do not wear diamonds is an objective moral principle”, is true or false, then I cannot know whether the proposition, “Wear diamonds is an objective moral principle” is true or false. I am left with no rational basis for asserting either claim.

Hence, it might be the case that the objective existence of a moral principle has nothing to do with whether we can know of its existence, but whether we can know of its existence has everything to do with the meaningfulness of any propositions or truth claims we make about it. A proposition that cannot be known to be true or false is empty, meaningless, and of no use to us at all.

Now, so far as I can see, there is no effective method, procedure, or means for determining the truth value of the proposition, “Do not wear diamonds is an objective moral principle”.

The problem lies in the fact that our epistemic point of view is ultimately – and inescapably – subjective. That is, we ultimately have just one – and only one – point of view, and that point of view is our own. We simply do not have the ability to stand outside of our own subjectivity and confirm that there exists anything independent of us – and that very much includes an inability to stand outside our own subjectivity and know that “the moral principle that diamonds should not be worn exists objectively”.

Even if we posit (1) that there exists a god who (2) has established the ontological existence of certain moral principles, and (3) wishes us to abide by them, we cannot stand outside our own subjectivity and know with certainty that any of those three propositions is true.

What can be said here about the proposition, “Do not wear diamonds is an objective moral principle”, can be said about any claim that something is or isn’t an objective moral principle. That is, it can be said about any purely moral claim that there is no effective means of determining if it exists objectively. All such moral claims are in epistemic terms meaningless, empty phrases that cannot be demonstrated to refer to any reality.

Now, that’s not to say that moral claims don’t have meaning as statements of value, but only that they are epistemologically meaningless. If they could be demonstrated to refer to some reality, then they would not be meaningless. But our subjectivity prevents that from happening. Hence, we cannot know that our morals are objective.

And this means that the person who says, “Morals are objective”, and the person who says, “Morals are simply a matter of individual preference”, are in the very same epistemic boat. Neither one of them can escape their own subjectivity. Neither one of them can claim to know with certainty that their proposition is true.

Just my two cents.

Some things like 'do not use makeup' or 'do not use diamonds' are often personal conscience choices that
are strongly affected by a person's experience and a rent a one size fits all

some things are a matter of conscience and some less so Respect for God, respect for parents and respect for others including life, and marriage and not being jealous...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Part of me understands the desire to flesh all this out, take the idea of "morality" to task and get down to the really nitty gritty. But part of me looks at all the arguments, and the logic we attempt to employ against it - but, at its core, how much does "morality" have to do with logic at all?

Morals are the ideas we hold as individuals or as a group that determine what we consider good vs. bad behavior from our own kind. This can vary from person to person, and from group to group - obviously - because that's what happens in reality. Trying to boil down the reasons to be moral or amoral, or trying to box it up and make it cut and dry - even trying to fully understand it - all futile, in my opinion. Reality is always going to be something different than the ideal, logical, fleshed-out "data" on morality.

Even if God exists (specifically citing the Abrahamic God in this case - since many other theistic concepts don't make as bold-faced claims about the objectivity of morality), His version of morality would be subjective at His "higher" level - even if we were to consider His edicts on morality as "objective" at our level of existence. Meaning that He could change what was "moral" at will... and that would have to become our new "objective" morality by default. That part can't be denied - especially not by believers. And especially not when the first of the "objective" laws He laid down for us is, supposedly, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". How is that objective at all? That's what He wants, obviously. Take all of reality into perspective - this realm in which even God himself exists - whatever that encompasses - why would there ever be some "rule" that is a requisite for anything and everything in this realm that specifically has to do with one of the other members of the realm (God)? Automatically not objective.

I don't agree that it's futile to consider morality, since I think it's more 'learning from the journey' than ever reaching a destination. But I found you second paragraph held a lot of truth to me.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Yeah I have to disagree with you here. A principle can be objectively moral and yet it is not necessary for an agent to have knowledge of that principle. Objective simply means that the moral principle does not change to the whims of the agent acting on such a principle. If the morality of a claim was dependent on an agent having knowledge of said claim (or a means), then such a principle is actually subjective not objective. Your argument attacks a straw man here.

It is technically possible to have a moral law that no one knows yet it is still a moral law. Just like ignorance of the law does not remove the power of the law itself. Philosophers (objective ones) have argued over the years on how to recognise these objective moral laws (because if we couldn't recognise these laws, then what would be the point of morality right?). Miller argued that moral laws were on linked to pleasure, and that the morally right action was that which generated the most net pleasure for everyone. Kant (praise him) came up with with a formula called formula of universal law, which was a way of recognising moral principles. In Essence you take a maxim (a principle you want to act upon) you universalise it for all agents past, present and future, and see if there is a logical contradiction. If there is, then such as action is objectively immoral.

Very often a subjectivity of agent hood if confused as subjectivity of principle. Yes everything a human claims is subjective, but an objective moral system is put forth on the assumption that it always to an independent moral standard.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I would say the 10 commandments reflect the character of God and so are not subjective

but

when we make values resting on man, I agree we lose sight of our subjectivity and like the late Fransis Shafer might say 'America is a nation with its feet firmly planted in air'

"I would say the 10 commandments reflect the character of God and so are not subjective"

You can say that all you want, but if you are going to claim objectivity then you can no longer hide behind unfalsifiability. So where is the evidence?

 

[whirlingmerc]

"I would say the 10 commandments reflect the character of God and so are not subjective"

You can say that all you want, but if you are going to claim objectivity then you can no longer hide behind unfalsifiability. So where is the evidence?

The 10 commandments being consistent with the character of God is consistent with the rest of the Bible

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The 10 commandments being consistent with the character of God is consistent with the rest of the Bible

I am sure you think that means something.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Morality can be either objective, or subjective.

How so? I would agree that morality can be seen as objective by some people, but do you mean a single person can see morality as objective and subjective? Can you give me an example?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That would mean that it was not objectively moral. This was in the same boat according to the OP.

Sorry mate. Not saying you're wrong, I honestly can't quite grasp what you mean/why you say that?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't agree that it's futile to consider morality, since I think it's more 'learning from the journey' than ever reaching a destination. But I found you second paragraph held a lot of truth to me.

Looking back, I shouldn't have added the "trying to fully understand it" part. In my mind I more meant "trying to logically understand all facets of it" - or to "code" it into slots or buckets of behavior. Something along the lines of trying to digitize or sample morality into something it isn't. I certainly don't think it an unworthy endeavor to consider morality, question it, utilize it to try and perfect social norms/laws, etc. So yeah, I have to admit to misspeaking a little there. Sometimes my thoughts in the moment are more cogent than the words I end up typing to represent them.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Looking back, I shouldn't have added the "trying to fully understand it" part. In my mind I more meant "trying to logically understand all facets of it" - or to "code" it into slots or buckets of behavior. Something along the lines of trying to digitize or sample morality into something it isn't. I certainly don't think it an unworthy endeavor to consider morality, question it, utilize it to try and perfect social norms/laws, etc. So yeah, I have to admit to misspeaking a little there. Sometimes my thoughts in the moment are more cogent than the words I end up typing to represent them.

I hear you. I often feel the same.
Thanks for taking the time to extrapolate.

 

[InChrist]

It seems to me that all people throughout history and in every culture instinctively recognize some kind of similar moral code with an awareness that some things are wrong....such as murder, rape, theft. Wearing diamonds just does not fall into that moral category. This universal awareness of right and wrong inherent in each person indicates to me a ultimate Lawgiver who has placed His moral code within our conscience. The Bible reveals that the Creator is the Lawgiver and also that the moral law which He has placed in each of us comes from a objective Source above and beyond ourselves.

 

[arthra]

The problem lies in the fact that our epistemic point of view is ultimately – and inescapably – subjective. That is, we ultimately have just one – and only one – point of view, and that point of view is our own. We simply do not have the ability to stand outside of our own subjectivity and confirm that there exists anything independent of us – and that very much includes an inability to stand outside our own subjectivity and know that “the moral principle that diamonds should not be worn exists objectively”.

Thanks for the thread Sunstone!

My view is that morality has observable results and works well as opposed to say wearing diamonds or not. Our morality is our way of life.. How we conduct ourselves and has little to do with in my view "diamonds".
Consider the definition of "morality":
"a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.."

Principles of conduct are observable and have results... Lack of moral code and conduct also have observable results. It makes a difference in human society if you conduct yourself honorably or not.

 

[Milton Platt]

This is a rough draft of some thoughts I’ve been having…

Let’s assume, for the sake of this discussion, that someone tells you, “Do not wear diamonds is an objective moral principle”. By that, they mean that whether or not the principle is moral is NOT determined by individual preference, but rather by some standard that is independent of any individual.

Now, if someone were to tell you that, “Do not wear diamonds is an objective moral principle”, would it not be logically relevant to ask, “How do you know that to be true?”

I have heard someone say that it would not be logically relevant to ask how we can know that such propositions are true.

They (correctly) argued that whether or not a moral principle exists objectively has nothing to do with whether or not we can know that it exists objectively.

But then they went a step further and (incorrectly) argued that because the objective existence of a moral principle has nothing to do with our knowledge that it exists, whether or not we can know that a principle objectively exists is of no relevance or consequence at all.

On the contrary, whether or not we can know that a moral principle objectively exists has great relevance and consequence to any propositions (i.e. truth claims) we make about it.

After all, if I claim to know that the proposition, “Do not wear diamonds is an objective moral principle”, is true, but I also claim there is no method, procedure, or means for knowing that the proposition is true, then I contradict myself. Then how can I know the proposition is true?

Moreover, if I cannot know whether the proposition, “Do not wear diamonds is an objective moral principle”, is true or false, then I cannot know whether the proposition, “Wear diamonds is an objective moral principle” is true or false. I am left with no rational basis for asserting either claim.

Hence, it might be the case that the objective existence of a moral principle has nothing to do with whether we can know of its existence, but whether we can know of its existence has everything to do with the meaningfulness of any propositions or truth claims we make about it. A proposition that cannot be known to be true or false is empty, meaningless, and of no use to us at all.

Now, so far as I can see, there is no effective method, procedure, or means for determining the truth value of the proposition, “Do not wear diamonds is an objective moral principle”.

The problem lies in the fact that our epistemic point of view is ultimately – and inescapably – subjective. That is, we ultimately have just one – and only one – point of view, and that point of view is our own. We simply do not have the ability to stand outside of our own subjectivity and confirm that there exists anything independent of us – and that very much includes an inability to stand outside our own subjectivity and know that “the moral principle that diamonds should not be worn exists objectively”.

Even if we posit (1) that there exists a god who (2) has established the ontological existence of certain moral principles, and (3) wishes us to abide by them, we cannot stand outside our own subjectivity and know with certainty that any of those three propositions is true.

What can be said here about the proposition, “Do not wear diamonds is an objective moral principle”, can be said about any claim that something is or isn’t an objective moral principle. That is, it can be said about any purely moral claim that there is no effective means of determining if it exists objectively. All such moral claims are in epistemic terms meaningless, empty phrases that cannot be demonstrated to refer to any reality.

Now, that’s not to say that moral claims don’t have meaning as statements of value, but only that they are epistemologically meaningless. If they could be demonstrated to refer to some reality, then they would not be meaningless. But our subjectivity prevents that from happening. Hence, we cannot know that our morals are objective.

And this means that the person who says, “Morals are objective”, and the person who says, “Morals are simply a matter of individual preference”, are in the very same epistemic boat. Neither one of them can escape their own subjectivity. Neither one of them can claim to know with certainty that their proposition is true.

Just my two cents.

We don't go through life with 100% certainty, we make observations and judgments based on observations.

 

[Milton Platt]

It seems to me that all people throughout history and in every culture instinctively recognize some kind of similar moral code with an awareness that some things are wrong....such as murder, rape, theft. Wearing diamonds just does not fall into that moral category. This universal awareness of right and wrong inherent in each person indicates to me a ultimate Lawgiver who has placed His moral code within our conscience. The Bible reveals that the Creator is the Lawgiver and also that the moral law which He has placed in each of us comes from a objective Source above and beyond ourselves.

For it to come from an objective source, it would have to be above your god as well. If he can change moral dictates as he does in the Bible, it is still subjective....subject to his own whims.

 

[InChrist]

For it to come from an objective source, it would have to be above your god as well. If he can change moral dictates as he does in the Bible, it is still subjective....subject to his own whims.

According to the Bible God does not change His mind about moral dictates, but is consistent. If you read the scriptures carefully and with understanding, not only is this truth seen, but also that there is no other God besides the Creator of heaven and earth...
For this is what the Lord says— he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited— he says: “I am the Lord, and there is no other (Isaiah 45:18); Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other (Isaiah 45:22)..


"Does God change His mind?"
Does God change His mind?