Objective Morals+

[ideologue08]

But if you said that God says killing is morally good, then yes, killing becomes morally good.

You are entitled to your own opinion. But you don't agree with killing at all, even when it was against the Nazis or any hostile country/people such as OBL etc. You can be a pacifist if you want, I've got no issues

[Something completely different]

You are entitled to your own opinion. But you don't agree with killing at all, even when it was against the Nazis or any hostile country/people such as OBL etc. You can be a pacifist if you want, I've got no issues

someone who leaves islam, betrayes her husband, has gay sex or drinks alcohol is not a nazi and secondly doesnt deserve death

[DeistPaladin]

Well, I don't know the exact criteria of what constitutes as objective morality, but for me God is always correct in His decisions because of His attributes.

This is, not surprisingly, sounding identical to the Christian apologetic response to this dilemma, known as Euthyphro's Dilemma. The dilemma is as follows:

1. Are good things good because God wills them?
-OR-
2. Does God will good things because they are good?

If we say things are good because God wills them, then morality is the subjective whim of a deity. The theist has no high ground on moral issues because their morality is nothing more than an appeal to might-makes-right. Big guy in the sky says it and that's that. To take this view is to reject objective or absolute morality and is, in fact, a morally bankrupt position to take.

If we say things are willed by God because they are good, then morality exists outside of God. That which is evil would still be evil regardless of whether or not God changed his/her/its mind or went away or turned out never to have existed at all. Again, the theist has no superior ground on moral issues.

Faced with this no-win situation but still desiring to stand on some moral high ground over the non-believer, the savvy apologist babbles about how it's both and yet neither one (the kind of both-yet-neither thinking that probably was the root of the "Trinity"). The babble usually goes something along the lines of "the essence of goodness is grounded in the very nature of God such that judgment of God will always be good and goodness comes from God."

Beyond the problem that this babbling nonsense treats morality as if it were some sort of substance that can make up a being of any kind ( what are the chemical properties of goodness again? ) there are a number of logical fallacies here:

1. Bare assertion
2. Contrived definition
3. Circular reasoning

The argument asserts that God is good and does so because it defines goodness as God. Thus we know that God is good because God is good and all decisions of God must be good because God is good and because God's decisions are good that proves that God is good and that God's will is good so all that God wills must be good because God's will is good and...

[John V]

This is, not surprisingly, sounding identical to the Christian apologetic response to this dilemma, known as Euthyphro's Dilemma.

Meh, maybe it was a dilemma for Euthyphro, but it never bothered me.

The dilemma is as follows:

1. Are good things good because God wills them?[/quote]
Yes.

If we say things are good because God wills them, then morality is the subjective whim of a deity. The theist has no high ground on moral issues because their morality is nothing more than an appeal to might-makes-right. Big guy in the sky says it and that's that. To take this view is to reject objective or absolute morality

Agree with you for the most part up to this point. I would note that an omniscient creator god would have better information at his disposal on which to make judgments. In the end, though, it's his subjective judgment.

and is, in fact, a morally bankrupt position to take.

Er, no, you haven't established that fact.

[Darkstar]

I'm not a believer in objective morals myself, but I don't see why an objective morality couldn't have differing rules for differing contexts and still be objective.

This is what I think...sort of. I cannot say that I am speaking for John V, but my own ideas on the subject (or perhaps thoughts) go something like this:

First of all, "god's" morals are certainly not objectively true. So, let's look at another system. Things happen, and although I said I was a utilitarian a few days ago in the "A small census" thread, after doing some reading on the subject (for uni, no less), I no longer think my views are strictly utilitarian.

When deciding what is moral, there are certain things taken into consideration. First, there are rights (this being first is entirely arbitrary, by the way). Pure utilitarianism implies that rights may be violated if it helps someone else significantly enough. The idea of rights is ingrained in our (or at least most of our) cultures, but there is an obvious reason behind it besides tradition. Like physical evolution, behavioral evolution confers advantages on those who have them. Those who abandon killing for illegitimate reasons (e.g. possesion) will have that advantage over those who do not. Most people can agree that they would want the right to life and liberty, and so there is the social contract. Enter into society, agree to honor these rights, and yours will (hopefully) be protected.

If someone didn't want to honor the rights of others...they would have none themselves, and would be in dire straights if those they wronged ever sought retribution. This sort of ties into the golden rule in that almost everyone wants the rights, and is (hopefully) willing to respect the rights of others to have their own assured.

Now, when using reason in determining what actions are morally right or wrong, utilitarianism is a good rule of thumb, so long as you keep in mind the "don't take away others' rights" rule.

So, from the above, it is obvious that no set of rules can lead to perfect morality. Does this mean that no objective morals exist? I think that some do, though there are undoubtably some morals that are entirely subjective as well.

Let's look at one of the bible's so called objective morals.
"Thou shalt not kill" seems like a no-brainer (despite the fact that it is repeatedly trampled in the bible), but that aside, it is also clearly incorrect. Let's say you kill someone in self defense, or perhaps take down some serial killer. Would that be wrong? In the instance of the first, one might argue that it is permissable, but should be avoided if possible, and is only permissable if it were an acccident. In the case of the second, one could say that it is only justifiable under the pretenses of preventing more killings. Therefore, killing someone may not be morally wrong depending on the situation.

But surely, what about killing an innocent person? Surely that must always be wrong. And again, there are possible scenarios where it might not be. One of them (the only realistic one I can think of) is Euthanasia. (Voluntary euthanasia, of course!)

eu·tha·na·sia
noun \ˌyü-thə-ˈnā-zh(ē-)ə\
Definition of EUTHANASIA
: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

So, by the definition above, would the killing of an innocent person in that matter (with consent) be immoral? I am inclined to think not.
So would we say "Killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy" is an objective moral rule?

Well, first I would step away from the word "rule". The above is kinda wordy, and if there were "rules" pertaining to each and every possible individual situation, then this would be rather bothersome, and kind of defeat the purpose of using reason to find moral truth. If you run into a situation, you need reason and empathy (and perhaps some other undefined thing) to make a good moral judgment...or perhaps you can do so without those things as well. If you can't trust your own moral judgment, then you're out of luck, I guess.

"But wait, isn't saying to use good judgment the same as saying morals are not objective?"

Well, it depends on what is meant by objective and subjective. Does subjective mean purely your opinion with no basis in fact, whereas objective means purely 100% mathematically provable? I think it falls somewhere in between. You can use reason to support many decisions of what is and isn't moral, but it is better to do this on a situational basis than try to follow strict rules.


...I'm now thinking the above was not put eloquently at all, more of a stream of consciousness really. *Sigh* I wasted too much time typing this, might as well post it anyway...

TL;DR: Objective morals are impossible to fit into broad rules, and so perhaps the only "objective" morals are whatever actions cause the best outcome while respecting others' rights (on a situational basis only). Though there are still many entirely subjective morals as well, and even the objectivish ones have some subjectivity in them.

[DeistPaladin]

Er, no, you haven't established that fact.

I'm sorry. Do I really need to explain why "might makes right" is morally bankrupt?

Or is there another part you didn't understand?

I would note that an omniscient creator god would have better information at his disposal on which to make judgments. In the end, though, it's his subjective judgment.

It sounds like you're advocating for option #2, that God has such wisdom and knowledge as to evaluate each situation and the character to make the right conclusion in his/her/its moral evaluation. So God evaluates that something is good because it is good.

That being the case, good is good with or without God saying so. Good would continue to be good if God were to ever not say so, or go away, or say otherwise, or turn out never to have existed. Right?

[John V]

I'm sorry. Do I really need to explain why "might makes right" is morally bankrupt?

Yes.

I would note that an omniscient creator god would have better information at his disposal on which to make judgments. In the end, though, it's his subjective judgment.

It sounds like you're advocating for option #2, that God has such wisdom and knowledge as to evaluate each situation and the character to make the right conclusion in his/her/its moral evaluation. So God evaluates that something is good because it is good.

No, as my last satement in the quote above says, the moral judgment is still subjective. I'm just suggesting that more people might agree with God if they had his knowledge.

[CleanShavenJesus]

So if god said murder was morally good, would you also think so?

Oh, and saying "god would never do that", is a cop out.

Murder by definition is wrong since it means "unlawful killing". But if you said that God says killing is morally good, then yes, killing becomes morally good.

You are a danger to society.

[TromboneAtheist]

I'm just gonna go ahead and explain why "might makes right" is morally bankrupt, just in case he is actually that supid. I am not saying that he is, just in case.

Imagine an all powerful king. You cannot, under any circumstances, overthrow this king/dicatator. He is basically a complete asshole. But what he says, goes, and if you disagree, you die. So this king, let's just call him King Theist, decrees that all women are property, have no rights at all, and are basically slaves to Males. King Theist proceeds to decree that homosexuality is a such a heinous crime, that anyone who is caught gets executed, same with aldultery, speaking out against the King, or his government, ect. King Theist is also a child molester. Why not? You would say he is to be overthrown, correct? You may not want to disobey him, for fear of death, but you would agree that he is evil, right, despite the fact he is all-powerful?

[DeistPaladin]

I'm sorry. Do I really need to explain why "might makes right" is morally bankrupt?

Yes.

Ah, OK then.

Might-makes-right is not a moral evaluation. In fact, it avoids discussing morality completely through appeals to authority or appeals to fear. I trust you're familiar with how both of these appeals are logical fallacies, right?

Might-makes-right instead focuses on power. Those who have the guns (or gold, or supernatural powers, or whatever) can make arbitrary decisions on what is declared to be "right" or "wrong" without any deliberation or consideration of what really IS right or wrong. This approach dispenses with any true considerations of morality and so is morally bankrupt.

Holding the moral judgment of any ruler, divine or mortal, above any question or inspection is also morally bankrupt. If you can't or won't question the morality of the god you worship, how can you be sure that you aren't unwittingly serving The Devil?

No, as my last satement in the quote above says, the moral judgment is still subjective. I'm just suggesting that more people might agree with God if they had his knowledge.

So morality can be discovered then with sufficient knowledge? If so, then morality still exists outside of and independent of God. By this worldview, God doesn't decide what is moral but rather makes wise judgments about what is moral, judgments that anyone else might hypothetically make.