Objective morality

[Grant Hicks]

A couple of quick thoughts regarding Grant Petersen's thought-provoking essay "Morality: What Part Do Gods Play?" on the Agora:

First, though it may be true that, as Grant says, "Objective morality may or may not exist but its connection with a deity is based solely on a theistic paradigm", I wonder why this is relevant to his argument. Surely the vast majority of those who press the "objective morality" question are in fact working in not just a theistic paradigm but a monotheistic one. They're unlikely to be discomfited by considerations like his "problem of numerous gods".

I also wonder about the "problem of subjectivity" in this context. What would the word "subjective" mean when applied to a being that is ex hypothesi perfect in love, wisdom and power?

For these reasons I think the central argument has to be what Grant calls the "problem of interpretation": Even if you believe in the Islamo-Judeo-Christian God as the creator and/or enforcer of objective moral standards, how can we possibly know what they are? Human history is not particularly encouraging in this regard, and you can find True Believers on all sides of almost any moral question. And how could the Biblical God have enjoined or permitted practices that would be considered heinous today, such as genocide, infanticide and slavery? Are we mistaken? Does God change his mind? Or do moral standards change to track social evolution - in which case how can they be called "objective"?

[ratjaws]

Morality: What Part Do Gods Play?
by Grant Petersen

It's plainly evident to me that most who contend against the Christian faith don't understand it's basic precepts and world view, and I think this goes for you also. To begin with, that the existence of God leads to an objectively moral universe is an assumption, but certainly it is not hidden, for that is why the question is asked, and as you stated, asked in the first place.

Next, your "problem of subjectivity" is in reality a confusion concerning the definition of God. The Church who has been entrusted with the deposit of faith begins with the certainty that God is the Source of all that exists, including concepts of justice. To be sure this is an intellectual assumption, one which pagan Greek philosophers made, but this unspoken idea that we cannot start with any assumptions is an assumption itself, and a bad idea at that! On the contrary we all must start with some assumptions and they are determined by an intellectual recognition of some immediate aspect of reality, more commonly called self-evident truths. That the Church accepts the understanding of men like St. Augustine who sees God as the Source of all, or the Prime Mover of Aristotle, or the first Cause of St. Thomas Aquinas, is a recognition of what is self-evident. Since God is the beginning and therefore standard, then all moral certitude lies or begins in the Mind of God. What God thinks exists and therefore what God knows as good, IS good, and therefore right. Likewise, what God knows to be evil must be just that for evil is a lacking of good and therefore in the moral order contrary to what is right. What is untrue is also not right and therefore not real.

Also hidden in your argument of subjectivity is a radical individualism that in it's essence refuses to admit personal knowledge can be also held in common (this too is an assumption on your part). When you ask "who is to say God's perception of right and wrong is superior to anyone else's?" ...the implication is that knowledge cannot be both subjective AND objective at the same time. I say along with philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas that knowledge is both because each of us has a mind meant to know the world external to it. We are individuals whose individual knowledge can converge on any object in reality and thus we can communicate what we know. Otherwise our knowledge of the world would be hopelessly pent up inside of us... and this is the implication carried by a strict subjectivism.

As for the "problem of displaced subjectivity" I find it interesting that in general atheists claim on the one hand the Christian religion is subjective and therefore suspect, while on the other morality cannot be objective. Both concern an intellectual apprehension of the world around us. That human beings disagree on what the moral order is certainly does not dismiss that order any more than two persons disagreeing on the existence of gravity dismiss it as a force to be reconned with. Our understanding of the universe is not necessary for it's existence but this is the implication of the argument that "humans disagree on moral questions." It infers that knowledge is the cause of reality rather than knowledge is OUR discovery of what actually exists.

Because as you say human knowledge is subjective, it is possible for people to disagree on what reality is. That individual knowledge also corresponds to real objects it is also knowledge which is objective and therefore a multitude of persons can know common objects. There is no "circular reasoning" in this reality and the fact that God is invoked is only a recognition of the source for these aspects of truth. Is there any other coherent explanation for knowledge and morality? If so please give it now for all to judge.

Your "problem of interpretation" can be handled by realizing that human knowledge is a mirror of God's because the human person is created to image God. We do so most intimately by virtue of our intellectual soul. Again, that persons disagree only serves to indicate that human knowledge can be faulty. But that persons DO agree also tells us this virtue can be perfected in human beings. When someone says "God's morals are, in fact, superior to human morals" the proper implication to be drawn is that God is the standard... the Examplar as Aristotle or Plato might have put it. We do not have to draw from it that God is right and we are all wrong as you do. I suspect this notion comes from your skepticism which is shown in the statement that "...the fact that we do not know what He knows..." On the contrary we were created to know what each other knows and what God knows by virtue of our mind (as well as to know ourselves, other beings and God). The simple fact that you attempt to communicate in a column such as this is evidence that what I am saying is true.

That there is a "problem of numerous gods" is a problem for those who reject reality and not those who embrace it. It's seen both in societies with partial and imperfect understanding of divine revelation as well as in individuals who reject supernatural revelation altoghether. Nevertheless what was revealed to the Jewish nation was both claimed to be true and manifest evident by the miracles of those who mediated this revelation for God. From this root came Christianity which also claimed to have revelation from God, only in it's complete and perfect form, principally as seen in the man called Jesus Christ. In His life and teachings we find the fulness of faith which was the intended product of revelation from God. The purpose of God's revelation is to eradicate all confusion and doubt that normally comes from inauthentic voices and other competing claims that are incomplete, inaccurate and incoherent. We test the claims of Christianity like we do that of any other religious claim to be from God, by it's integrity, which cannot be known without looking at the actual deposit kept by Christ's Church. This Church is known by it's four marks as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Try testing it for yourself (EWTN.com)!

Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas!
In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity!

[Edited to delete e-mail address only. -DM-]

[Icarus_UK]

The problem with self-evident truths is that there are so many different and mutually contradictory ones :-) In fact of course, there can be no such thing as a self-evident truth, there can only be things which we accept with varying degrees of confidence - otherwise there would be some things which every single person agrees on unquestioningly, which is not the case.

I'm 100% certain that the idea of 'objective morality' is not only wrong but actually meaningless, by definition. How people behave is an objective fact. How people *should* behave is clearly not an objective fact, but is instead a subjective judgment. These are two mutually contradictory concepts and it's difficult to see how anyone could confuse one with the other.

[-DM-]

[Thank you for your feedback regarding Morality: What Part Do Gods Play? (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=315) by Grant Petersen. E-mail notification has been sent to the author (again). Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response from him following this post. In the meantime, this thread has been moved to the Moral Foundations & Principles forum in order to facilitate open discussion. -DM-]

[Ratjaws]

Mr. Hicks,
You pose some very interesting and important questions concerning morality in Mr. Grant's article. Fortunately, I think you hit on a key when you brought up the topic of love, albeit for a different reason. First some prerequisites; I quote you:

"And how could the Biblical God have enjoined or permitted practices that would be considered heinous today, such as genocide, infanticide and slavery? Are we mistaken? Does God change his mind? Or do moral standards change to track social evolution - in which case how can they be called 'objective'?"
Now I cite Christian scripture:

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power." (Heb.1:1-3 RSV)

According to what I understand about the mind of the Church, God revealed Himself slowly to men, over long periods of time, in order that finite men were not overwelmed by truth (truth is conformity of the mind to reality) and it's requirements... it's just requirements. It is God's love that we participate in which He protects by allowing evil. That statement may sound funny but only if you misunderstand what love and evil are. We are free to choose that which is good and that freedom implies we also can make the wrong choice... that of evil (evil is the lack of some necessary good). As St. Thomas Aquinas says, God can allow this evil precisely because He is capable of drawing a greater good from it (after the final Judgment we will see this fully worked out; although in this life we may at times see some hint of it).

Again scripture reveals in an implicit manner morality from the Mind of God:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles." (Rom.1:18-23 RSV)

So moral conduct or knowledge distinguishing right from wrong is implicitly found in all of nature, especially when looking at human nature. This is essentially true because if men have a moral sense it must come from their principle Cause, the one we call the Creator or God. In the book of Genesis we find man was created in God's "image and likeness" thus what God is infinitely, creatures must be finitely, or as a reflection is to the Examplar.

My point is while God has allowed men to continue to make mistakes (due to both sin and ignorance as Aquinas says) nevertheless He corrects us individually as well as has tried to correct us on a collective level throughout the ages. His revelation of the necessity and obviousness of moral truth can be known through watching men interact in society as well as through what is called conscience. This latter means is ingrained in man's nature, being a certain ability of man's intellectual faculty to make judgments about the good within the nature of all created being. As I've said this native sense concerns especially man himself. Conscience is both the instrument by which we know morality exists and the model when seen in properly functioning human persons (Mother Theresa of Calcutta India is an example here who became a moral authority by virtue of her work with "the poorest of the poor"). Also God's helps to know moral truth are seen in His handing Moses and the Jewish nation the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments written on them supposedly by His hand (an ontological statement). This is because these commands were a reflection of that working faculty in men which we call conconscience and yet another indicator and reminder that man should live by an absolute code in order to exist peacefully. Morality from this perspective is absolute because its source is external to man even though the means to discover moral truth are within man (his functioning mind).

Still, I realize there is doubt in some persons that these Commandments are fundamental laws which must be observed by all human beings, to which I would ask; who would want or allow themselves or their family members to be murdered, lied to, or stolen from? I know that many who mistrust Judeo\Christian revelation at least concur with these three. Yet, who would desire or remain happy if their spouse were to be unfaithful in adultery? The one we love we expect to return that love and the one we love faithfully we expect all the more faithful love returned as the minimum requirement. An even greater love exists which goes beyond justice and gives oneself for another totally, unselfishly... this we call a divine love (because it's source is God who created us not out of any need in Himself and saved us by taking on the just punishments for our sin, when He need not suffer to save us; this is a manifestation of selfless love; agape in Greek).

I can go on and on through all the Commandments like this, including coveting, and find general agreement among reasoning men and women against these undesirables. That is except for the command which tells of the duty to worship God alone. This first command is about love of a divine Person (as contrast to the other moral commands directed to love of fellow human beings). If one don't agree there are divine persons then they may reject this but certainly we all know there are human persons other than us. The point is that charity or selfless love undergirds all the Commandments and is the very reason there is a moral sense to our intellectual faculty. In fact metaphysically the definition of love is our intellect's appetite for the good seen in being. This can be called "will," which in mankind is free, unlike in animals in which case their knowledge they act on is only sensitive (instinctual) and not free (intellectual). The difference of course is fundamental in that humans can recognize and choose higher spiritual goods (like dying for a concept such as salvation or dying for someone unrelated) whereas animals do not. The human faculty for love has greater capacity but in this "appetite" is the basis of all morality. It is by nature that we are attracted to the good in being and to go against this is to sin or to simply violate moral principle.

Therefore God does not change nor do moral absolutes since they come from the Mind of God. What does change is human awareness or recognition of these standards. That people violate moral principle only shows mankind is fallen or weakened in his nature. It shows he's a "sinner." It does not necessarily follow that because some "believers" act immorally then revealed truth is suspect, rather it could be said to show that the "believers" conscience is flawed. And even if the human race was initiated through a process of bodily evolution this cannot affect moral principles since they are spiritual by nature (justice cannot be analyzed under a microscope even though it be a concept manifest in human behavior - concepts are of the mind or are thought and therefore spiritual). What is spiritual cannot evolve as a body can, because the body is composed of parts and can decay and die. The body is capable of change so could possibly evolve. The soul, the principle of life for the body, has no parts and therefore cannot change in the same sense as a body. It cannot evolve. Moral principle rooted at the spiritual level, at the level of thought and the soul, therefore cannot change.

Also that something is subjective simply means we compare it back to the mind that knows. This does not dismiss the fact that the mind knows something apart from itself, some object in reality, an objective truth. Of course one can sculpture what is known into anything they can imagine but this too does not eradicate the external object known. Whether what is known is physical or spiritual in substance it exists apart from the mind knowing it. It must exist or it could not be known. So even though I know a tree or an angel my subjective knowledge is subject to that object known. The subjectiveness of knowledge does not prove the known to be unreal or imaginary. It only shows we are the knower. Furthermore even what is imagined must start with some actual object known in reality. Thus a unicorn bears resemblence to a horse. It cannot make the horse which is the begining concept for the imaginary creature any less horse or real. Then too it is possible to create in the mind what is considered to be a falsehood with our imagination (or lie if it is known to be false and passed on as truth), which is the case Mr. Grant and you imply in your question. In this case the "problem of subjectivity" is primarily about trust (of a particular person) rather than whether something known is an objective reality. In fact I propose that the simple fact that one person in the whole world has an idea of God bears testimony to the existence of God to that degree, rather than it be dismissive of it. Add to this the fact that many people have an idea of God and we merely confirm rather than make more suspect the idea that God exists. This is because even if people imagine God they must start with something real in order to get to the imaginary "distortion." So it would seem to substantiate the concept rather than call it into question. To say subjective knowledge is that which cannot be proven with sense information is to say what I can know is limited to experience with my five senses, and therefore, to cut myself off from others passing on what is known. It also leaves me in a closed world where most of it I cannot know because I have not experieced it. It would tend to nullify communication which has it's basis in being able to know and then share that knowledge. In reality what is in our mind (subjective knowledge) we pass on every day to others who have not experienced it. Trust of the person sharing with us becomes a factor we must consider, in some cases more than others only because the stakes are higher in that case. Still, the issue of personal trustworthiness runs through that of knowledge and it's objectivity/subjectivity in every instance. Therefore each of us who allows God to reveal Himself to ourselves "is to say that god's perception of right and wrong is superior to anyone else's" because God is capable of doing what He causes creatures to do, otherwise by definition we could not exist, our Cause would not be our cause, we'd have no first Cause, yet we must!. This is because our cause is not within ourselves as we are not self-sufficient. We are contingent beings and don't give to ourselves the ability we have to communicate, to know or think, we don't cause our own existence. Since we don't we must get our power to do these things from something/someone else that has all that we could ever be capable of doing... of being, in all it's varities, in all it's perfections, therefore our Cause (God) must have these perfections in Himself infinitely. If we can think "subjectively" God must have an infinite capacity for subjective thinking, He must be infinite subjectivity, and therefore His opinion must be subjective too. But God exists apart from His creation (even prior to) so those subjective things God knows must be or start within Himself. Thus in God's case He is the object of His own knowlege and the He is that knowledge of the object which is Himself. In other words God is infinitely the Known and the Knower (whereas we know only what is external to our mind). God is the Subject and the Object from which all others come. God knows Himself perfectly, infinitely, all at once... so is thus pure act, while we are potency and act, we move from able to be, to actual being. God on the other hand is all He can be, has always been, will always be, in one act! All this to say God's knowledge must be subjective because ours is subjective, not as caused by us but because we image God. Also seen in that we can come to an idea of God. Therefore God's knowledge is infinite subjectivity while ours is finite, a reflection of God's own knowledge of Himself. We are participated subjectivity. God is the ontological cause of subjectivity. All that we are is a participation in God's own being including our subjectivity. God knows His own goodness and as reflected goodness we know our own goodness. This knowledge is ours (subjective) but is real (objective) in that we see (intellectus) the good that is in our nature, the good in all other being, that participated good that has it's source in God.
I hope what I'm saying above is not confusing because it is hard to express since these are hard concepts to understand in the first place. Anyway I welcome your comments?

Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas!
In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity!

[Donnmathan]

I think the main problem here, Tim, is that you are arguing based on an ad-hoc assumtion, namely, that your god is the source of moral instinct. You are wrong - the source of moral instinct, whether you admit it or not, is my God and Goddess; they have said so, and thus this is self-evident truth.

You see the problem? You are basing your whole argument on an unprovable assumption - that your god exists, and is the source of some mystical knowledge of morality that you claim all humans share. Problem is, ANYONE can make those claims for any deity - they have no real support behind them, just a very vague collection of old stories written down 2000+ years ago by a bunch of shepherds. If one bases the opening premises of an argument on such things as 'self-evident truth' and 'divine law', one is opening one's self up for attacks on those premises. You are beginning, as I said, with ad-hoc statements, which will likely be challenged straight away by anyone arguing against you.

You go straight into the Ten Commandments in your second post, and argue their universality. OK, I'm game to try this; of course, the book I'm going to use might not list them in the same order yours does, or state them in the same way - and thus we encounter our first difficulty. If the Ten Commandments are so direct a reading of the 'Mind of God', why is it that every version of the Bible lists them just a bit differently? Using what I have however, we will try to proceed - the version I have is my wife's New American, by the way.

1) "I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have other gods besides me."

A straight-forward statement, if not terribly accurate to the Torah, which replaces the word "besides" with the word "before." Also seems to firmly command the Jews only; most versions I've seen include that "brought you out of slavery" bit in some form, which makes it terribly clear who was being addressed. There is no real moral issue here, just an instruction that could be easily applied to your average canine, namely, obedience - I'm your Master, you obey no one else. I also find it odd that there is such an emphasis on how they were freed from slavery, when so much of the rest of the book deals with how the slaves of the Jews should be treated!

2) "You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments."

No moral issue here, either, just an attempt to further mark his territory. The part about the punishment of children for the fathers' wickedness has facinating moral implications, though - it implies that you can be morally "stained" and punished because of something your great grandfather did! Personally, I see that as neither moral or just, unless you include immoral and unjust.

3) "You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain. For the Lord will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain."

Well, respect is a moral issue at it's core, but must usually be earned, not demanded. A moral person would assume respect for everyone, and only withdraw it when an individual proves themselves unworthy of it - by demanding it, for example. If someone walked up to me on the street and demanded I respect them, I would immediately assume they were a pompas and ignore the demand. If that person were also known for killing millions in floods, demanding the slaughter of whole civilizations, and murdering first-born children, I would loose any pretense of respect and assume they were dangerously unstable.

4) "Remember to keep holy the sabbath day. Six days you may labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord, your God. No work may be done then either by you, or your son or daughter, or your male or female slave, or your beast, or by the alien who lives with you."

Again, no real moral issue, but another religious command given to the Jews. Notice the inclusion of slaves in the list - it becomes obvious that that highly immoral practice was readily approved of! Although I guess you ought to give credit for abolishing the seven-day work-week...

5) "Honor your father and your mother, that you may have long life in the land which the Lord, your God, is giving you."

Ah, a purely moral issue, but one which leaves a lot to be desired! Should you honor your father if he is sexually molesting you? How about your mother is she beats you to within an inch of your life on a regular basis? Which raises the question, of course, of what is ment by "honor", and why an implied threat was included. There seems to be a lot of room in this for abuse - it could mave been far less vague.

6) "You shall not kill."

(Will come back to #7)

8) "You shall not steal."

9) "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

There are the three you mentioned initially, the ones you called "Judeo\Christian revelation." Ignoring, of course, that all three were prohibited in the very civilization the Jews had just been freed from, that of ancient Egypt. Yes, they are certainly good rules to live by, but pre-existed the Jews in any number of other cultures, including Egypt, Nubia, the Hittites, and likely many of the others wiped out by the hebrews in their conquering of the "Promised Land". Which they did by slaughtering the aforementioned pre-existing cultures - guess that thing about not killing and stealing is mutable, eh? I also noticed that the prohibition against lying only seems to apply to you "neighbor," does that mean there are others it is OK to lie to?

7) "You shall not commit adultery."

I tend to think this one also existed prior to the Ten Commandments, and therefore was no big news to anyone. Any society that has the concept of marraige (and the Egyptians, for one, did) will also have laws regarding the rules for such a union, and faithfulness is one of them. Once again, we can't credit this to "Judeo\Christian revelation," as it predated Moses.

10) "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ass, nor anything else that belongs to him."

A moral rule, to be sure, and one that isn't expressly covered in any other rule of law that I could find. So you have one that is actually a solid moral standpoint, even if it is mandating a ban on an emotion (jealousy). How one would argue for the legitimacy of a moral ban on something that is as difficult, if not impossible, to control as an emotion, I have no idea.

Seems the ten rules you called "Judeo\Christian revelation" are either not unique, not moral codes, or, in the last case, a moral issue, but all but impossible to avoid breaking. All of this fails address the real issue, however - how does the above prove any sort of 'universal moral code" based on the Judeo/Christian faith's teachings? Where is slavery in that moral code, except directly approved of? Don't most modern cultures find that practice morally bankrupt? More than half of the people in the world fall outside the relms of the Judeo/Christian faith - are the "universal moral codes" of [i]all those people broken, that they refuse to follow the first four commandments? Why are people leaving the Judeo/Christian belief structure in large numbers?

I guess a part of my poor reaction to your statements comes back to your assertion that humanity is fallen, thus inherantly "bad;" it displays a pessimism and degree of contemt for humanity that I just can't fathom. I prefer to work from the opposite idea - that humanity is basicly innocent, and the ill behaviour comes from the teachings of society, rather than some supernatural stain. All-in-all, you've made a number of assumptions and started from a few premises I find to be questionable at best, if not out-and-out wrong. Revealed truth is a poor starting point for discussion in this arena.