Objective morality without God

[curbyIII]

Suppose person A's morality includes being nice to other people, preventing harm, and generally increasing the welfare of other living things. Suppose person B's morality includes being nasty to other people, causing gratuitous harm, and generally decreasing the welfare of other living things.

If there is no God, I don't think that it is possible to objectively compare person A's morality and person B's morality. According to what criteria would person A's morality be "better" than person B's?

Things in the universe are neither inherently good nor bad. For example, an icecream sundae is not inherently good or bad. To a person who likes the taste, an icecream sundae is good, to a person who does not like the taste, it isn't. Without any kind of intelligent agent to evaluate it, an icecream sundae is neither good nor bad.

Similarly, moral codes are neither inherently good nor bad. To me, person B's morality is reprehensible, but this is a subjective judgement based on my own moral code. I think that you would have to invoke a higher power (that is an intelligent agent) in order to compare moral codes objectively.

[Castorama]

curbyIII: Is God good? Would God make morality absolute? Would God's opinion not be brought into question by the possibility of an even higher creator?

If there is no God, I don't think that it is possible to objectively compare person A's morality and person B's morality. According to what criteria would person A's morality be "better" than person B's?The negative feelings of others that resulted from the 'worse morality' of person B.

Things in the universe are neither inherently good nor bad. For example, an icecream sundae is not inherently good or bad. To a person who likes the taste, an icecream sundae is good, to a person who does not like the taste, it isn't. Without any kind of intelligent agent to evaluate it, an icecream sundae is neither good nor bad.Why do we need anyone to judge the worth of objects, when individuals can choose themselves?

Similarly, moral codes are neither inherently good nor bad. To me, person B's morality is reprehensible, but this is a subjective judgement based on my own moral code. I think that you would have to invoke a higher power (that is an intelligent agent) in order to compare moral codes objectively.Although not philosophically objective in any way, the best method of practice is to judge the ethics of a behaviour by balancing the feelings experienced by all those involved.

[JamesBannon]

God's morality (if it exists) is not objective either.

[curbyIII]

curbyIII: Is God good? Would God make morality absolute? Would God's opinion not be brought into question by the possibility of an even higher creator?


If we use God's morality as the metric by which we compare moral codes, then God's behaviour would be defined to be good. If you're asking what my subjective moral judgement of God is, then that depends upon what I'm basing my opinion: the Bible? what the universe is like (e.g. suffering in the world)? and so on.

I don't understand your question regarding God making morality absolute. Regarding the third question, if God's opinion is defined to be the moral metric, then it can't be brought into question.


The negative feelings of others that resulted from the 'worse morality' of person B.


This doesn't really change the issue:

Suppose person A's moral code said negative feelings of other living things are bad, person B's moral code said that negative feelings of other living things are unimportant, and person C's moral code said that negative feelings of other living things are good. All 3 of these hypothetical people have radically different moralities, how can you objectively compare them?


Why do we need anyone to judge the worth of objects, when individuals can choose themselves?


My point is that though each individual can subjectively judge things, they can't do so objectively. Subjectively saying "it's wrong to be nasty to other people" because your moral code disagrees with that kind of behaviour is just as meaningful as saying "icecream is wrong/bad/evil" because you dislike its taste.


Although not philosophically objective in any way, the best method of practice is to judge the ethics of a behaviour by balancing the feelings experienced by all those involved.


If it's not objective, then it doesn't mean anything to call it the "best" method. It's only the best method from your subjective point of view. It's like saying that soccer is the best sport.

[curbyIII]

God's morality (if it exists) is not objective either.

It is if we define it to be the objective metric against which people's moral codes are measured. God, being the creator of the universe and possibly the universe itself, is as good a candidate for an objective standard as I can think of.

[Castorama]

If it's not objective, then it doesn't mean anything to call it the "best" method. It's only the best method from your subjective point of view. It's like saying that soccer is the best sport.The question is simply semantic. You could say that conscience means nothing, but this would not stop us being consciousness, and therefore having an interest in acting for good.

[curbyIII]

The question is simply semantic. You could say that conscience means nothing, but this would not stop us being consciousness, and therefore having an interest in acting for good.

I don't understand.

[JamesBannon]

It is if we define it to be the objective metric against which people's moral codes are measured. God, being the creator of the universe and possibly the universe itself, is as good a candidate for an objective standard as I can think of.
And the same goes for any moral system: deontological, utilitarian, etc. What's your point?

[curbyIII]

And the same goes for any moral system: deontological, utilitarian, etc. What's your point?

Hmmm. I don't think that defining a moral system is enough to make it objective. Choosing a moral system is still a subjective choice.

For example, person A acts in a manner consistent with Utilitarianism, while person B acts in a manner consistent with Nazism. From person A's point of view, person B acts reprehensibly because their behaviour is often inconsistent with person A's Utilitarian morality. From person B's point of view, person A acts reprehensibly because their behaviour is often inconsistent with person B's Nazi morality.

To be able to meaningfully say which of these two moral systems is "better", you need an intelligent agent that has some sort of preference. Yes, that intelligent agent can be defined to be some third person. However, as I pointed out in my last post, I think it makes more sense to define that third person to be God.

[JamesBannon]

As is choosing one based on god. Any "ideal" observer will do for choosing which system is better than any other.

[Autonemesis]

If there is no God, I don't think that it is possible to objectively compare person A's morality and person B's morality. According to what criteria would person A's morality be "better" than person B's?

Why do we have moral codes, and what do we expect them to do for us? Moral codes are prescriptive, they tell you how you ought to act. So can't you evaluate them based on whether or not they seem to encourage the sort of behavior in people that would lead to a society in which we'd want to live? I see no need to ask an outsider how we ought to live.

[Castorama]

I don't understand.I am simply saying that where many subjective feelings / opinions exist, basing your actions on people's subjective feelings or opinions is better than saying 'fuck it'.

Just because this rule is in no way objective does not go to say that it doesn't mean anything to us existences (of consciousness) that have no objective form. It is not like saying that moral code is a construct as real as physics, because I admit that human consciousness is only a by - product of physics, and thus, no more 'real' than any of the constructs, such as free will and morality, that it experiences.

We are functioning on a level alltogether lower than objectivity itself, and can only gain glimpses of what seems to be objective from our POV.

[NZSkep]

It is if we define it to be the objective metric against which people's moral codes are measured. God, being the creator of the universe and possibly the universe itself, is as good a candidate for an objective standard as I can think of.

would this be the god that says 'thou shalt not kill' or the god that orders the slaying of homosexuals, adulturous women, and people that work on the sabbath?

[EarlOfLade]

If we use God's morality as the metric by which we compare moral codes, then God's behaviour would be defined to be good. If you're asking what my subjective moral judgement of God is, then that depends upon what I'm basing my opinion: the Bible? what the universe is like (e.g. suffering in the world)? and so on.

And why can't we use Allahs moral or one of the Hindu gods moral? Why the christian god? Why is that better than any other so called gods moral? Why do we need an objective moral?

As an example, in Europe it's considered moral, for women, to go around topless on the beach. This is not considered moral in USA. Which one is correct and why?

[curbyIII]

As is choosing one based on god. Any "ideal" observer will do for choosing which system is better than any other.

Yes, I agree. An "ideal" observer is necessary to compare moral systems. God would be that "ideal" observer.


I am simply saying that where many subjective feelings / opinions exist, basing your actions on people's subjective feelings or opinions is better than saying 'fuck it'.

Just because this rule is in no way objective does not go to say that it doesn't mean anything to us existences (of consciousness) that have no objective form. It is not like saying that moral code is a construct as real as physics, because I admit that human consciousness is only a by - product of physics, and thus, no more 'real' than any of the constructs, such as free will and morality, that it experiences.

We are functioning on a level alltogether lower than objectivity itself, and can only gain glimpses of what seems to be objective from our POV.


I agree. I'm just saying that you can't have objective morality without God.


Why do we have moral codes, and what do we expect them to do for us? Moral codes are prescriptive, they tell you how you ought to act. So can't you evaluate them based on whether or not they seem to encourage the sort of behavior in people that would lead to a society in which we'd want to live? I see no need to ask an outsider how we ought to live.


No, that approach doesn't solve the problem. For example, person A, who is a Utilitarian, thinks that Utilitarianism is a good morality because it leads to a society that they would want to live in (where everybody is nice to each other), while person B, who is a Nazi, thinks to Nazism is a good morality because it leads to a society that they would want to live in (one without Jews). Again, you don't gave an objective way to evaluate moral codes, you have to do it subjectively from the point of view of your own moral code.


would this be the god that says 'thou shalt not kill' or the god that orders the slaying of homosexuals, adulturous women, and people that work on the sabbath?


God's actual morality is a separate issue.

[JamesBannon]

Yes, I agree. An "ideal" observer is necessary to compare moral systems. God would be that "ideal" observer.
Why? We might as well have a little green man from somewhere in the vicinity of Beetlegeuse do our observing for us or don't you think that a human can't play the role of ideal observer?

[curbyIII]

And why can't we use Allahs moral or one of the Hindu gods moral? Why the christian god? Why is that better than any other so called gods moral? Why do we need an objective moral?


I wasn't making the claim that a particular god's moral code is "better" than another's. In fact, that goes against the spirit of this post. That kind of judgement would be subjective. I'm also not claiming that an objective morality is necessary. I'm just saying that a higher-level observer is needed for us to have anything resembling an objective morality.


As an example, in Europe it's considered moral, for women, to go around topless on the beach. This is not considered moral in USA. Which one is correct and why?


Subjectively from the point of view of the Europeans, the Europeans are "right"; subjectively, from the point of view of the Americans, the Americans are "right". To see what is right objectively, you would have to see which moral code God prefers.

[Nemoralis]

Suppose person A's moral code said negative feelings of other living things are bad, person B's moral code said that negative feelings of other living things are unimportant, and person C's moral code said that negative feelings of other living things are good. All 3 of these hypothetical people have radically different moralities, how can you objectively compare them?
You're right. You can't objectively compare them. But there IS a reason to adhere to what most people would consider a "good" moral code rather than what most people would consider a "bad" moral code, and that is for the well-being of society. Humans are social creatures. How would one function in society if one went about killing/raping/stealing from people? You wouldn't last long, would you? Humans have evolved certain social instincts that prevent us (well, most of us) from acting in this way. There is a scientific and logical reason to adhere to a moral code. It doesn't have anything to do with good and evil.

I agree. I'm just saying that you can't have objective morality without God.
Exactly. And (IMO) there is no such thing as an objective morality. So where is the problem?

[curbyIII]

Why? We might as well have a little green man from somewhere in the vicinity of Beetlegeuse do our observing for us or don't you think that a human can't play the role of ideal observer?

I guess what I'm saying is that "good" and "bad" always have to be from somebody's point of view. There is no such thing as objectively "good" and "bad" and "ought" and "ought not". If you want an objective morality then you have to define it from somebody's point of view. It seems to me that it is less arbitrary for that chosen point of view to be God's.

[Nemoralis]

It seems to me that it is less arbitrary for that chosen point of view to be God's.
Why does it seem that way? Let's assume for a moment that there is a god and that he did ordain our moral code. Did he come up with it himself or did he simply relate right and wrong to us?

[curbyIII]

You're right. You can't objectively compare them. But there IS a reason to adhere to what most people would consider a "good" moral code rather than what most people would consider a "bad" moral code, and that is for the well-being of society. Humans are social creatures. How would one function in society if one went about killing/raping/stealing from people? You wouldn't last long, would you? Humans have evolved certain social instincts that prevent us (well, most of us) from acting in this way. There is a scientific and logical reason to adhere to a moral code. It doesn't have anything to do with good and evil.


Well, there a many examples of people who do actions that do not increase the well-being of themselves or society (suicide bombers immediately spring to mind). Note that you still don't have an objective reason to act one way or another. Essentially what you are saying is if you want the world to be a certain way, then you should adhere to a moral code that will help you achieve that. For example, a person who wants to lead a quiet, well-to-do life, should follow a moral code where they help their neighbours, don't break laws, etc. While a Nazi who wants to kill all the Jews should adhere to a moral code that will help them achieve that goal. They can't achieve the goal by being in jail, so they should instead form a political party supporting their views.


Exactly. And (IMO) there is no such thing as an objective morality. So where is the problem?


There's no problem. I'm just making the point that atheism inherently implies subjective morality.

[curbyIII]

Why does it seem that way? Let's assume for a moment that there is a god and that he did ordain our moral code. Did he come up with it himself or did he simply relate right and wrong to us?


God, being an intelligent agent, likes certain things and dislikes others. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter where this comes from. If you want an objective morality, then it would have to be based on what God likes and dislikes. If he likes your moral code, then it is "good", if he dislikes it, then it is "bad".

[Nemoralis]

Well, there a many examples of people who do actions that do not increase the well-being of themselves or society (suicide bombers immediately spring to mind).
You're right, but remember that if morality is a product of evolution, it does not just have to be a product of scientific evolution. What about societal evolution? What was right and good 500 years ago is not considered right and good today. Humans haven't evolved much in that time, but society has. Society and genetics [evolution] play an equal role in the morality of a person. No, suicide bombers are not contributing to their own well being nor the well being of their children. But they are following a principle that has been conditioned in them since birth. That is societal influence.

Secondly (and this is merely speculation), suicide bombers and their counterparts can be thought of as protectors of their beliefs. They believe that they have died to protect the truth of their religion or whatever principle it is that they are defending. Is this not a basic natural instinct? Many animal species will willingly die defending their young or their territory. Are these two phenomena really that much different?

There's no problem. I'm just making the point that atheism inherently implies subjective morality.
Okay, then I agree with you. And (again, all in my opinion) this is the way it should be. The belief in an absolute moral code is somewhat dangerous. A subjective morality is something that I have no problem with.

[wiploc]

I'm just making the point that atheism inherently implies subjective morality.

But how would theism change that. You think god is in some sense "higher," so he should make the rules. But even if it were true, that wouldn't make them more objective than human-made rules.

Whatever test you come up with to declare god's rules to be objective, the same test will make atheistic rules objective too. And whatever test you come up with to declare that atheistic rules are subjective, the same test will make god's rules subjective too.

crc

[Nemoralis]

But how would theism change that. You think god is in some sense "higher," so he should make the rules. But even if it were true, that wouldn't make them more objective than human-made rules.

Whatever test you come up with to declare god's rules to be objective, the same test will make atheistic rules objective too. And whatever test you come up with to declare that atheistic rules are subjective, the same test will make god's rules subjective too.

crc
I agree. If god is the one who decided what is right and what is wrong, then our intended moral code is no more objective than what we have now - god arbitrarily chose right and wrong. And if god simply related right and wrong to us without having any choice in the matter, then the moral code comes from something outside and above him, and therefore he is no longer the one in control or the one making everything objective.

Forgive me if I'm creating a false dichotomy, I may have overlooked other possible options.

[curbyIII]

But how would theism change that. You think god is in some sense "higher," so he should make the rules. But even if it were true, that wouldn't make them more objective than human-made rules.

Whatever test you come up with to declare god's rules to be objective, the same test will make atheistic rules objective too. And whatever test you come up with to declare that atheistic rules are subjective, the same test will make god's rules subjective too.

crc


It's true that any intelligent agent can be used as a metric for objective morality. It just seems to me that measuring morality against what Joe Shmoe says makes less sense than measuring morality against what god says.

I suppose it's a moot point anyway, since I'm an atheist.

[wiploc]

It's true that any intelligent agent can be used as a metric for objective morality. It just seems to me that measuring morality against what Joe Shmoe says makes less sense than measuring morality against what god says.

Less sense why? Is it because you think god is good? If that's not your (subjective) reason, then what is?

crc

[curbyIII]

Less sense why? Is it because you think god is good? If that's not your (subjective) reason, then what is?

crc


Well I don't think that god is good (since I don't believe in him). Anyway, picking a moral system based on a subjective evaluation of its "goodness" essentially boils down to picking a moral system most similar to your own.

I see a moral code as a heuristic to help us act in a way that will help us achieve our goals. Since god would be much smarter than Joe Shmoe, his moral code would be more effective. However, he could have radically different goals from my own, so I suppose he is no better a role model than Joe Shmoe.

By the way, what does "crc" mean/stand for?

[wiploc]

Well I don't think that god is good (since I don't believe in him).
But you were saying that if god existed, then we could have objective morality. And I was asking whether you said that because you presumed that if god existed then god would be good.




Anyway, picking a moral system based on a subjective evaluation of its "goodness" essentially boils down to picking a moral system most similar to your own.
Good point.



I see a moral code as a heuristic to help us act in a way that will help us achieve our goals. Since god would be much smarter than Joe Shmoe, his moral code would be more effective. However, he could have radically different goals from my own, so I suppose he is no better a role model than Joe Shmoe.

Agreed.




By the way, what does "crc" mean/stand for?


Those are my initials. It turns out that "wiploc" isn't my real name. :)

crc