My views on objective morality

[Catholic_Lady]

I feel very confident that it is. Of course, there is always the chance that I could be wrong. But let me put it this way, I feel as confident in my beliefs as I am confident that my husband loves me. Could I be wrong about my husband loving me? I mean, sure... anything is possible. but I feel confident enough that he loves me to the point where I am ok with saying "I know my husband loves me." Same thing applies to my religious beliefs. I feel confident enough to say "I know God is real, I know He gave us free will, I know He is love and goodness, and that anything outside of that is immoral." How do I know? How am I so confident? Again, it is not something that can ever be summed up in a forum post. The short answer is, given everything I have experienced/seen/learned in my life, has led me to believe what I do. 

1. Does you belief in objective morality stem from your faith in your god?  If you lost your faith, would you still believe in objective morality?

If you are referring to when God literally talks to people in the Old Testament, I don't believe that ever happened. I believe Jesus is God, and I believe in what He taught us about morality - doing good for others as we want them to do for us, loving others as ourselves, and forgiving our enemies, etc. I believe that is the basis for all of morality.  

2. Does that not require interpretation, which of necessity involve subjectivity?   

I'm not trying to explain why anyone else should believe as I do. Also, there is no way I know of to convince anyone. I think it's something that a person would need to conclude for him/herself based on their own understandings. I don't understand how that ties in to objective morality though. Perhaps you can clarify?  

3. Your OP seemed like you were trying to explain why you accept morality as objective. Is not your belief that morality is objective a belief?

I disagree that one cannot convince another of certain things and that morality is one of those certain things, myself.  I think if morality is objective -- if it exists outside of human experience and is simply a fact of the Universe -- then I should think that as with any fact, its factuality would be demonstrable. I know that if you could demonstrate its factuality, I would be forced to revise my views so that they comport with objective reality.

My answer for this is the same as up top (the why are you Catholic question, basically). I think the first part of my response works to answer this.

4. But your Catholicism is based on your personal (which is to say, subjective) experiences.

Sorry I've been MIA the past couple of days. I've had some things to attend. 

Anyway, I've numbered your questions 1-4, so I can address each one down here. 

1. Honestly, they kind of go together. Objective morality makes sense to me. For example, it makes sense to me that feeding a starving child is objectively good, and raping a vulnerable child is objectively evil. To me, it makes 0 sense to think those things are just matters of opinion, and that there is no concrete truth behind them. Like, "well, I think raping kids is immoral, so it's immoral to me, personally... but if someone else thinks raping a kid is good, then that person is not wrong/incorrect in their thinking, because there is no true or real answer." That makes no sense to me. It makes 0 sense that moral/immoral behaviors are no different from a person's taste in food or favorite color. 
I feel there is something inside of us that helps us distinguish between objective good from objective evil (at least on the more obvious issues) and even people who do horrible things have to come up with all kinds of justifications to tell themselves that what they're doing isn't actually bad (think Holocaust). I feel like we have somewhat of an inherent understanding between good/evil, and that we know we should strive for good. 
...And then God comes right along with that, because without God, it makes 0 sense for objective morality to exist. As the video explains, for a law to exist, there needs to be a lawmaker. It makes 0 sense to me for objective morality not to exist, and if objective morality exists, it makes 0 sense to me for there not be a supreme being. 

2. Yes, it requires interpretation, but I don't think that means a true or correct interpretation doesn't exist, and that it's all just a matter of opinion.  

3. Yes, it is a belief. But kind of like my answer above, I don't think this means that a person's belief can't be correct, just because it's called "a belief". As the example I gave explains, I also "believe" my husband loves me. Does he ACTUALLY love me, or doesn't he? If he does, then my belief is correct. 
I still stand by the notion that there are things in life that cannot be demonstrated factually/scientifically because they are beyond our natural world. Objective morality comes from a place of the supernatural, as does God... but that is what separates theists from atheists in the first place - a belief/disbelief in the supernatural. 

4. Yes, I believe what I do for my own reasons. Others may have different reasons for believing the exact same thing as me. For example, maybe one person witnessed something supernatural and that was a big part of what led them to the Church, maybe someone else studied history and philosophy extensively, and that was a big part of what led him/her. But at the end, they both have the same belief.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm satisfied that your morality is just as subjective as mine. You simply prefer to call it objective morality. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

[Catholic_Lady]

You are welcome. Sorry it took a while. Thanks for your patience.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You are welcome. Sorry it took a while. Thanks for your patience.

It's all good, glad you have a life.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Honestly, they kind of go together. Objective morality makes sense to me. For example, it makes sense to me that feeding a starving child is objectively good, and raping a vulnerable child is objectively evil. To me, it makes 0 sense to think those things are just matters of opinion, and that there is no concrete truth behind them. Like, "well, I think raping kids is immoral, so it's immoral to me, personally... but if someone else thinks raping a kid is good, then that person is not wrong/incorrect in their thinking, because there is no true or real answer." That makes no sense to me. It makes 0 sense that moral/immoral behaviors are no different from a person's taste in food or favorite color.

You've been conflating matters of opinion and taste with behaviors which are sociable or anti-social. Murder is anti-social, and since sociable behavior is an important component of the human survival imperative for most humans, then murder is bad for most people. When you commit a murder, you commit an offense against society, which is why it doesn't matter what your opinion is or that you enjoyed killing your victim, all societies will outlaw murder. This fact does not in itself make murder, nor rape, nor child exploitation, nor the embezzlement of public funds objectively immoral - no, they are simply anti-social, which society will outlaw because society represents and protects what is social against those who would act against it. Anti-social behavior isn't considered wrong by all, therefore it's not objectively immoral - if it was, then nobody would be killing, raping, embezzling, etc.

I feel there is something inside of us that helps us distinguish between objective good from objective evil (at least on the more obvious issues) and even people who do horrible things have to come up with all kinds of justifications to tell themselves that what they're doing isn't actually bad (think Holocaust). I feel like we have somewhat of an inherent understanding between good/evil, and that we know we should strive for good.

Well of course we have an inherent understanding of sociable vs. anti-social behavor, and that is because we have the genes of animals which are highly evolved to live in complex societies - nothing magical about that.

From here, if you dare (and I know you won't) we can compare anti-social behaviors to Catholic rules, some which Catholics and other Christians want to enforce on all Americans. There's contraception, which is a no-no to Catholics, but it never harms existing persons, and it helps keep populations at managable levels - therefore, sociable, and most Western countries don't outlaw it, they're definitely not objectively immoral. The same with abortion. So then, CL, how do you reconcile these facts on the above, which you consider to be wrong, but are not by the evidence "objectively wrong"? On forcing unfortunate women to carry an unwanted child to term, even when it ruins her life or harms her physically, this is certainly an anti-social side of your religion, but I know you aren't going to admit that lobbying to strong-arm them with the law is anti-social, for all the harm it causes very real people who you don't want to understand. You also declare "fornication" as objectively immoral, but the evidence sheds a sociable light on this when done safely, not anti-social.

[rexbeccarox]

Honestly, they kind of go together. Objective morality makes sense to me. For example, it makes sense to me that feeding a starving child is objectively good, and raping a vulnerable child is objectively evil. To me, it makes 0 sense to think those things are just matters of opinion, and that there is no concrete truth behind them. Like, "well, I think raping kids is immoral, so it's immoral to me, personally... but if someone else thinks raping a kid is good, then that person is not wrong/incorrect in their thinking, because there is no true or real answer." That makes no sense to me. It makes 0 sense that moral/immoral behaviors are no different from a person's taste in food or favorite color.

You've been conflating matters of opinion and taste with behaviors which are sociable or anti-social. Murder is anti-social, and since sociable behavior is an important component of the human survival imperative for most humans, then murder is bad for most people. When you commit a murder, you commit an offense against society, which is why it doesn't matter what your opinion is or that you enjoyed killing your victim, all societies will outlaw murder. This fact does not in itself make murder, nor rape, nor child exploitation, nor the embezzlement of public funds objectively immoral - no, they are simply anti-social, which society will outlaw because society represents and protects what is social against those who would act against it. Anti-social behavior isn't considered wrong by all, therefore it's not objectively immoral - if it was, then nobody would be killing, raping, embezzling, etc.

This, I mostly agree with, however...

I feel there is something inside of us that helps us distinguish between objective good from objective evil (at least on the more obvious issues) and even people who do horrible things have to come up with all kinds of justifications to tell themselves that what they're doing isn't actually bad (think Holocaust). I feel like we have somewhat of an inherent understanding between good/evil, and that we know we should strive for good.

Well of course we have an inherent understanding of sociable vs. anti-social behavor, and that is because we have the genes of animals which are highly evolved to live in complex societies - nothing magical about that.

From here, if you dare (and I know you won't) we can compare anti-social behaviors to Catholic rules, some which Catholics and other Christians want to enforce on all Americans.

C_L has made it clear she doesn't want to force Catholic law on anyone.

There's contraception, which is a no-no to Catholics, but it never harms existing persons, and it helps keep populations at managable levels - therefore, sociable, and most Western countries don't outlaw it, they're definitely not objectively immoral.

I mean, I know you're arguing against objective morality here, so when did C_L say that contraception is objectively immoral? I mean, I don't ever recall her saying that she thinks all morality is objective; just that some morals are.

The same with abortion. So then, CL, how do you reconcile these facts on the above, which you consider to be wrong, but are not by the evidence "objectively wrong"? On forcing unfortunate women to carry an unwanted child to term, even when it ruins her life or harms her physically, this is certainly an anti-social side of your religion, but I know you aren't going to admit that lobbying to strong-arm them with the law is anti-social, for all the harm it causes very real people who you don't want to understand.

I'm sorry, but can you read C_L's mind?

Seriously, I don't think morality is objective; not by a long shot, but you can make that argument just fine without building straw men.

You also declare "fornication" as objectively immoral, but the evidence sheds a sociable light on this when done safely, not anti-social.

When did she declare that?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

You've been conflating matters of opinion and taste with behaviors which are sociable or anti-social. Murder is anti-social, and since sociable behavior is an important component of the human survival imperative for most humans, then murder is bad for most people. When you commit a murder, you commit an offense against society, which is why it doesn't matter what your opinion is or that you enjoyed killing your victim, all societies will outlaw murder. This fact does not in itself make murder, nor rape, nor child exploitation, nor the embezzlement of public funds objectively immoral - no, they are simply anti-social, which society will outlaw because society represents and protects what is social against those who would act against it. Anti-social behavior isn't considered wrong by all, therefore it's not objectively immoral - if it was, then nobody would be killing, raping, embezzling, etc.

This, I mostly agree with, however...

Well of course we have an inherent understanding of sociable vs. anti-social behavor, and that is because we have the genes of animals which are highly evolved to live in complex societies - nothing magical about that.

From here, if you dare (and I know you won't) we can compare anti-social behaviors to Catholic rules, some which Catholics and other Christians want to enforce on all Americans.

C_L has made it clear she doesn't want to force Catholic law on anyone.

There's contraception, which is a no-no to Catholics, but it never harms existing persons, and it helps keep populations at managable levels - therefore, sociable, and most Western countries don't outlaw it, they're definitely not objectively immoral.

I mean, I know you're arguing against objective morality here, so when did C_L say that contraception is objectively immoral? I mean, I don't ever recall her saying that she thinks all morality is objective; just that some morals are.

The same with abortion. So then, CL, how do you reconcile these facts on the above, which you consider to be wrong, but are not by the evidence "objectively wrong"? On forcing unfortunate women to carry an unwanted child to term, even when it ruins her life or harms her physically, this is certainly an anti-social side of your religion, but I know you aren't going to admit that lobbying to strong-arm them with the law is anti-social, for all the harm it causes very real people who you don't want to understand.

I'm sorry, but can you read C_L's mind?

Seriously, I don't think morality is objective; not by a long shot, but you can make that argument just fine without building straw men.

You also declare "fornication" as objectively immoral, but the evidence sheds a sociable light on this when done safely, not anti-social.

When did she declare that?

To begin with, it isn't personal - when I said "you declare", I referred to Catholic teachings, which CL has stated this past week that she accepts, as handed down by the Pope, no cherry-picking. CL has within the past month stated that she believes abortion is wrong, and accepts papal teachings against contraception. She has also stated she believes sex should be delayed until marriage.

I ddn't say that CL stated an opinion on the "objective morality" of anything other than murder and rape, but the thread isn't about murder and rape, Your Highness - it's about objective morality, and this is a construct offered by Xtians in general to justify their doctrines, on everything from fornication to their support of the 10 Commandents. Do you really think CL would restrict the application of her logic to the extreme crimes which she mentioned?

No, I don't think I built any straw men here at all. It's possible that I presumed wrong that CL applies the same logic which she applies to murder likewise to abortion and fornication regarding that silly Xtian construct, but I would not be wrong on how most Xtian apologists have applied it. At worst, I pointed out how she was conflating subjective opinion with objective judgement on whether something is sociable or anti-social, and whether or not she applies the same logic to more controversial "sins", we all got to see what we'd get if it was done that way.

CL says she doesn't want to force Catholic Law on other people, and I believe her. But do you think this means she would object to those who do work to undermine bodily autonomy rights every day in places States such as Texas? Naturally, this would be something altogether different than just being quiet about it in your pew, but if you patronize Frankie's church with your money, then you support what he does with it all the same.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

What exactly is "morality" anyway? I'm going to chalk this up to yet another Xtian construct, and this is unfortunate -I believe the dialogue in this thread has been hopelessly muddled on account of the argument is based on a construct of nebulous definition (as is typical with religious constructs). Then again, I have observed in my last post that an objective judgement can be made on whether something one may do is social or anti-social. Is this enough to determine whether or not it's moral? If so, then maybe we can all agree on there being objective morality, and without any need for any theistic doctrine. But I don't think it would work for any theists who insist that their controversial prohibitions and requirements are also founded on objective morality.

[rexbeccarox]

What exactly is "morality" anyway? I'm going to chalk this up to yet another Xtian construct, and this is unfortunate -I believe the dialogue in this thread has been hopelessly muddled on account of the argument is based on a construct of nebulous definition (as is typical with religious constructs). Then again, I have observed in my last post that an objective judgement can be made on whether something one may do is social or anti-social. Is this enough to determine whether or not it's moral? If so, then maybe we can all agree on there being objective morality, and without any need for any theistic doctrine. But I don't think it would work for any theists who insist that their controversial prohibitions and requirements are also founded on objective morality.

I totally agree with you on the above. I just think you were assigning thoughts and opinions to C_L that she hasn't actually stated or that she's fully denied, either in this thread or in others. You can lump all Catholics in together if you really want, but their beliefs aren't all exactly the same, like whether Genesis is literal or not. I'm not sure, but I think I remember C_L saying she wouldn't vote against bodily autonomy, but we'd have to ask her to make sure.






(Please don't call me "Your Highness")

[robvalue]

Saying some morality is objective is really just saying some things are blatantly harmful. And it's an admission that morality as a whole, is subjective.

But of course, any individual can still disagree and might think one of those "obvious" things is actually fine. If we must ignore their position, then we're simply cherry picking and looking for trends to fit the conclusion we want. Outcomes can be objectively assessed; how any particular person might judge those outcomes cannot. Trying to define morality to be anything other than a judgement makes it incoherent, in my experience.

Neither does this take into account other factors like intentions. It's a massive oversimplification.

Even in the context of "obvious" things like killing someone, the circumstances and the state of mind of the individual are all mitigating factors. Most people would judge someone less immoral for killing someone who was about to kill them, than killing someone out of the blue. Even killing someone who just killed their loved ones would probably be considered less immoral.

But I always come back to this.... "Objective" morality, even in theory, cannot handle conflicts of interest between different outcomes. I've asked for examples of how it ever could, and I've only ever received the following:

1) Examples that have no conflict and are obvious (shoot someone or don't shoot them).

2) One person decided between the "lesser of two evils" by always making sure their personal accountability to God was intact; and further consequences to others be damned.

Number 2 is at least a way of resolving things, although how "accountability to God" is determined in the first place is wildly subjective; but it makes a mockery of morality, reducing it to following orders and nothing more. That is all "objective morality" could ever be.

I think the person who said the statement in number 2 (I won't say who) was dead serious, and that is incredibly scary to me. They would make actual crucial life decisions which affect other people based on religious dogma. This is one of the dangers of religion, at least among those who take it seriously.