Morals - Objective and Subjective

[Dystopia]

Theist quite frequently use the argument of objective morals to justify the existence of a certain deity.

This is not however what I'm looking to discuss, but rather - Do you think we can talk about objective morals from a secularist point of view (without god)?

I'm asking this because I notice (we all do) certain morals, a minimum circle that everybody in society seems to share, basic teachings like 'Murder and killing for fun is wrong and shouldn't be done'. I think everyone in a society will agree that murder is wrong (excluding self defense and other similar situations) and shouldn't be done, the only people that would disagree would probably be mentally ill or people with any kind of psychological disorder.

What are your thoughts on this?

[JuliaL]

Theist quite frequently use the argument of objective morals to justify the existence of a certain deity.

Let's distinguish between objective morals and absolute morals.
Objective morals are those which are agreed on and consistent for a set of individual observers. Absolute morals would be those which are external to and consistent for any and all individual observers.
I believe the former evolve with the societies in which they embed. Theists often claim the latter as the product and property of their particular deity who has rights to amend, enforce, or except in individual or universal cases. I do not believe absolute morals exist as anything more than a convenient fiction.
Objective morals are context specific to the society, species or self replicating informational organism to which they apply. Much like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, morally correct is in the mind of the individual. As an example, I have no doubt that a she-wolf protecting her pups against a marauding human child thinks herself fully in the right to maul the little bastard before it hurts her babies. Other wolves would likely agree. The kid's parents, not so much.

[ignoramus]

This is where religious morals and non religious morals are worlds apart.
People will argue till the cows come home.

I find all heads of church to be hypocrites...
The higher up they go, the more the hypocracy of what they stand for.
Do they have correct morals?

[jewishAtheist]

I don't think there are absolute morals (assuming there is no god). I think the morals all societies seem to share are those that are required for every society to function properly, such as not killing its members.

[Mudhammam]

Morality is simply the recognition that experiences range in quality from extremely pleasant to painfully unbearable. "Objective" morality should be treated no different than "objective" rationality. To the person who values man's irrational nature over the idea of logical principles, morality appears at best relative.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Each society creates and observes its own set of morals that may or may not be the same as those that other societies follow. Since we live in the modern world where people around the globe are much closer and more involved with each other than before people are adopting a unified set of morals to follow. A typical set is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

[Angrboda]

Theist quite frequently use the argument of objective morals to justify the existence of a certain deity.

Let's distinguish between objective morals and absolute morals.
Objective morals are those which are agreed on and consistent for a set of individual observers. Absolute morals would be those which are external to and consistent for any and all individual observers.

I think you are mistaken.

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that particular actions are absolutely right or wrong. Thus stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.

Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism (also called moral objectivism). Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism. Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and universalism:

• Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.
  
• Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.

Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on rights and duty, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes.

(Moral Absolutism)

I believe that "moral objectivism" is a synonym for "moral realism."

Moral realism is a non-nihilist form of cognitivism. In summary, it claims:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
   
2. Some such propositions are true.
   
3. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion.

(Moral Realism)

[Mystic]

I think morality is both subjective and objective.

[mralstoner]

Yes and no. Without a god, morality is a question of what people desire in order to live a happy life. Science can, and increasingly does, study what things people desire i.e. what conditions make them happy. But science will only ever be able to study averages, it can't tell you what will make you happy personally. And human nature is so malleable, it won't be easy to make universal/objective statements about happiness (for an average human). Not anytime soon, anyway.

Professor Jonathan Haidt is a good reference on non-religious morality. Haidt says: morality is like the matrix (yes, the movie) i.e. morality binds and blinds. Morality is a binding force to keeps the tribe together (which is a good thing in a hostile world) but at the same time it blinds us to the truth (which is a bad thing because we perceive our morality to be right simply because its ours). Haidt has a couple of books: The Righteous Mind, and The Happiness Hypothesis, and lots of youtube videos.

[Knowledge of God]

Proverbs 2:6-8Contemporary English Version (CEV)




6
All wisdom comes from the Lord,
and so do common sense
and understanding.

7
God gives helpful advice[a]
to everyone who obeys him
and protects all of those
who live as they should.

8
God sees that justice is done,
and he watches over everyone
who is faithful to him.