Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[Jenny A]

I've seen people say a lot that there is an absolute morality, but it seems to me that there is not. For example, some people say that killing is ultimately wrong, but there can be no reason why one thinks killing is wrong, other than personal desire. Personal desire is not quantifiable, therefor it's an arbitrary measurement of a person's feelings. 

It would seem were it not for this problem, there wouldn't be religion, which tries to solve this problem through dogma, and the imposition of an imaginary creator of whom punishment is inescapable. It would seem to me, that all morality is nothing more than dogmas, whether it be social norms or enforced laws. 

How does one cope with knowing that all morality is arbitrary, and say that one respects morality beyond being blinded by dogmas, or simply appreciating the geometry of such arbitrary systems? on a purely intellectual level. The alternative is, of course, "psychopathy", where the dogmas and appreciation of arbitrary systems is absent.

By cope, I mean cope with the fact that the systems in place are arbitrary, so there's no one system which can ultimately bring about the best of humanity. Without an objective morality, of which one could appeal to every person through reason, there is basically only wars and dogmas that struggle for dominance.

The basic mistake you are making is in assuming morality is a monolithic whole. Most very basic moral principles are almost universal among humans. Humans who violate them then tend to define thier victims as others (not quite human) or to provide other justifications. Generally they don't challenge the moral rule itself. Morals that fall into this category include thou shall not murder, steal, batter, rape, or lie. Societies may tweak the definitions of murder, steal, batter, rape, and lie, but the basic concepts appear universal. As such they are not arbitrary. Further they appear necessarily to community living which suggests they have an evolutionary function, and are thus not arbitrary. Lesser rules such as not deceiving others or keeping promises are also near universal for similar reasons.

On the other extreme there are wholly religious or patriotic prescriptions like thou shalt not burn the flag, eat meat on Friday, work on the Sabbath, worship idols, eat pork, take the Lord's name in vain, get this tatoo, etc. These are pretty arbitrary. They are a good means of broadcasting tribe and alleigance, but don't seem to have any other real function. And the mere fact there is a rule, any rule, would perform the same function. The societal need to have a couple of these appears universal but what they might be is arbitrary. Often these rules conflict in that following a patriotic rule conflicts with a religious one, or vis versa. Tribal allegiance appears near universal, but how to demonstrate it approaches arbitrary.

In between are rules made by societies for the good of society, or at least for the good of the rules makers. These aren't arbitrary as they do have a purpose beyond tribal identity, but they aren't universal either: drive on the right (or left), pay your taxes, don't vote twice, don't pollute, don't discriminate, use approved electrical equipment, don't hunt out of season, etc. Such rules tend to have a reason and so aren't arbitrary, but they aren't universal either. People may in conscience disobey some of them without feeling a moral twinge but society would be shattered if even 10 % of people ignored 10% of them.

Notice that all morality tends to have to do with people getting along with or signaling to other people. Cannibalism, murder, rape, and theft, among other species isn't necessarily immoral especially if the species is not social. The concept of morality is social and evolutionary.

[SteveII]

Even in the broadest sense of the word, atheism (defined as an absence in a belief in God) is a position that contains no God. A worldview that contains no God affects key metaphysical questions like what is there? and what is it like?

Which can then both be and has been answered in any conceivable way, by atheists, so long as that answer contains no gods.  

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I appreciate the dialog. 

"No god" carries with it far more weight that you are allowing. Can you avoid Naturalism being true in a "no god" worldview? If not, that comes with a bunch of metaphysical baggage having to do with epistemology, etiologic considerations, limited ontology, etc. 

To deny this seems like your way of evading the conclusion: atheism leads to things like life having no intrinsic (essential) value/purpose/meaning. How could it--we are simply the product of time and chance--two things that cannot endow meaning.

Being an atheist doesn't mean "a person who believes we are the product of time and chance".  I'd have to ask about the latter, ofc..if we were the product of time and cahnce...and we can endow meaning....wouldn't it then follow that time and chance can, in fact, endow meaning?  Your categorical denial of the ability to endow meaning by x seems more a convenience than a well thought out objection.  

I am not saying that atheist can't find meaning in life--but that is different than a theist's position that human life has value simply because it is human life (intrinsic/essential). 

An atheist is also capable of holding that position.  You may notice you made no reference to any god...there...just to people who believed in one.  Human life has value, why?  Simply because it's human life.  What a wonderful secular exclamation.  

You might say that is a distinction without a difference. It is not. That is why abortion and euthanasia are abhorrent to many theists.

-and also many atheists........

I'll say this again.  You, Steve, privately worry and publicly project that without a god, your god, you would fall into some sort of nihilism.  It's just you.  It has nothing to do with atheism, it does not follow from atheism...atheism....doesn't have a damned thing to say about the meaning of life, whether it has a meaning..or it's value if there is any.

The distinction is that a "no god" epistemology gives you subjective value/meaning/purpose which leave it open to a matter of opinion and a theistic epistemology provides objective grounding with God providing value/meaning/purpose which is not open to opinion or changing over time. 

If an atheist thinks abortion or euthanasia is abhorrent, then they must admit it is their opinion and other have a right to their opinion. Hopefully the "others" opinions don't matter more than yours when it comes to your baby or your grandmother. A theist has no such obligation to recognize someone else's opinion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I appreciate the dialog. 

"No god" carries with it far more weight that you are allowing. Can you avoid Naturalism being true in a "no god" worldview? If not, that comes with a bunch of metaphysical baggage having to do with epistemology, etiologic considerations, limited ontology, etc. 

Buddhists manage, don't they, lol.  I get that you think it "carries weight"...but that's probably because the god idea carries weight...with you...as a believer, eh?

The distinction is that a "no god" epistemology gives you subjective value/meaning/purpose which leave it open to a matter of opinion and a theistic epistemology provides objective grounding with God providing value/meaning/purpose which is not open to opinion or changing over time. 

You -just- gave us a secular value/meaning...was it objective when you said it but subjective when I say it?  How does that happen?  Further, the way you're using the terms objective and subjective are ridiculous.  The value or meaning god assess in our case is no more or less subjective than the value we may place upon one another or ourselves...and from the other end granting it the status of "objective" in gods case would grant us the same.

If an atheist thinks abortion or euthanasia is abhorrent, then they must admit it is their opinion and other have a right to their opinion. Hopefully the "others" opinions don't matter more than yours when it comes to your baby or your grandmother. A theist has no such obligation to recognize someone else's opinion.

Hahaha, wow, talk about a lot that demands privilege?  So, other people have to recognize others opinions...yours as well, presumably, but you don't have to recognize theirs?  Again...how does that work?

[Neo-Scholastic]

...nihilism....It has nothing to do with atheism, it does not follow from atheism...atheism....doesn't have a damned thing to say about the meaning of life, whether it has a meaning..or it's value if there is any.

Indeed. It has nothing to to say about the meaning or value of life. But "atheism" isn't a thing. People are atheists. Which means people who have no God. Ergo, people who have no known justification for believing that life has ultimate meaning or life has value. Unless you have one.

No?

Didn't think so.

[Odoital77]

The fact that they are mere societal constructs doesn't nothing to lessen their arbitrary or subjective nature.  If morality is merely a construct, then it is the same as choosing between chocolate and vanilla no matter how much law, police, or societal disapproval you put on the other side.  It remains just as arbitrary.

That is why I say "yes" to the proposition that an objective moral law exists.  I don't see how it could reasonably be otherwise and still be describing anything that corresponds to reality.

bold mine

Can you tell us what you believe these objective moral law(s) are? In specific, not general.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  The moral law doesn't necessarily refer to a specific list of do's and don'ts in the way you suggest.  They can certainly be delineated in that fashion in very general terms, but the specifics of any particular moral circumstance are dependent upon the situation faced.  For example, it is wrong to take the life of another human beings without proper justification.  But whether or not the life of any particular or specific human being can be taken in a justified manner is dependent upon the specific circumstances.  So the only way a person can talk about the moral law is in general terms, until you reason from the general to the specific, given relevant facts in a moral circumstance.

I think our recognition of the moral law is a properly basic belief, similar to other things we are rational to believe but cannot be proven by something like science.  For example, the existence of the external world, the existence of other minds, the reliability and reality of memory, the reality of the past, or the idea that universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago with an appearance of age, etc...  I think the same is true of our moral intuitions at a very basic level.  Now our ability to rightly apply the moral law we recognize to specific situations is a different matter having to do with the extent of our moral understanding.  And I certainly think that our ability to recognize morality and reason well to the specifics can be greatly affected by our parents, our society, education, etc...  But in this, we're talking about refining our skills of recognition and reason, thereby changing how one generation who had a weaker understanding of "how to apply the moral law" might be seen as having applied the moral law relative to a later generation with a superior understanding.  And we can see this in the moral improvement that can be documented to have occurred throughout history.

And maybe part of this has to do with the idea that moral facts are different from the ordinary facts of life.  Put simply, moral facts needn't necessarily be instantiated for us to know or be aware that they are true, which is specifically not true of non-moral facts.  So I could say to you that my dog, Soldier, sometimes likes to eat grass.  What would have to be the case for that fact to be a true fact?  Well, I'd have to have had a dog named Soldier, and that dog would have had to have eaten grass on occasion.  But if I said, it is wrong to torture handicap babies for fun, does that even need to have occurred for me to know that it's wrong?  No.

Our moral recognition capacity exists and our moral intuitions are real, but asking for a detailed list is to misunderstand the nature of what we're talking about.  There is a lot that we know about morality and the things that are wrong or right.  I don't need to provide you a list of that.  If you want a greater understanding of the area, then you need to look into ethics and epistemology in philosophy.  The moral law is something discovered rather than invented, rather like the laws of logic.  We all use and presuppose the laws of logic everyday and all human beings have since the beginning.  Long before Aristotle ever described any of them, they were there and being used.  The same is true of objective morality.  Anyway, I hope that makes sense?

[brewer]

bold mine

Can you tell us what you believe these objective moral law(s) are? In specific, not general.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  The moral law doesn't necessarily refer to a specific list of do's and don'ts in the way you suggest.  They can certainly be delineated in that fashion in very general terms, but the specifics of any particular moral circumstance are dependent upon the situation faced.  For example, it is wrong to take the life of another human beings without proper justification.  But whether or not the life of any particular or specific human being can be taken in a justified manner is dependent upon the specific circumstances.  So the only way a person can talk about the moral law is in general terms, until you reason from the general to the specific, given relevant facts in a moral circumstance.

I think our recognition of the moral law is a properly basic belief, similar to other things we are rational to believe but cannot be proven by something like science.  For example, the existence of the external world, the existence of other minds, the reliability and reality of memory, the reality of the past, or the idea that universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago with an appearance of age, etc...  I think the same is true of our moral intuitions at a very basic level.  Now our ability to rightly apply the moral law we recognize to specific situations is a different matter having to do with the extent of our moral understanding.  And I certainly think that our ability to recognize morality and reason well to the specifics can be greatly affected by our parents, our society, education, etc...  But in this, we're talking about refining our skills of recognition and reason, thereby changing how one generation who had a weaker understanding of "how to apply the moral law" might be seen as having applied the moral law relative to a later generation with a superior understanding.  And we can see this in the moral improvement that can be documented to have occurred throughout history.

And maybe part of this has to do with the idea that moral facts are different from the ordinary facts of life.  Put simply, moral facts needn't necessarily be instantiated for us to know or be aware that they are true, which is specifically not true of non-moral facts.  So I could say to you that my dog, Soldier, sometimes likes to eat grass.  What would have to be the case for that fact to be a true fact?  Well, I'd have to have had a dog named Soldier, and that dog would have had to have eaten grass on occasion.  But if I said, it is wrong to torture handicap babies for fun, does that even need to have occurred for me to know that it's wrong?  No.

Our moral recognition capacity exists and our moral intuitions are real, but asking for a detailed list is to misunderstand the nature of what we're talking about.  There is a lot that we know about morality and the things that are wrong or right.  I don't need to provide you a list of that.  If you want a greater understanding of the area, then you need to look into ethics and epistemology in philosophy.  The moral law is something discovered rather than invented, rather like the laws of logic.  We all use and presuppose the laws of logic everyday and all human beings have since the beginning.  Long before Aristotle ever described any of them, they were there and being used.  The same is true of objective morality.  Anyway, I hope that makes sense?

bold mine

It makes sense as a subjective explanation. You've originally said objective but used subjective cases in your response to support your position. Maybe you don't understand objective. One definition:" of a person or their judgement not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts". Another: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations or prejudice".

Objective morals would not be dependent on situation, justification, circumstance, or understanding. All of those are subjective.

[The Grand Nudger]

Indeed. It has nothing to to say about the meaning or value of life.

Could have stopped here. By god you've figured it out!

But "atheism" isn't a thing. People are atheists. Which means people who have no God. Ergo, people who have no known justification for believing that life has ultimate meaning or life has value. Unless you have one.

Wrong again...you see, ergo is a word people use when something follows from something else.  

You're welcome

[bennyboy]

...nihilism....It has nothing to do with atheism, it does not follow from atheism...atheism....doesn't have a damned thing to say about the meaning of life, whether it has a meaning..or it's value if there is any.

Indeed. It has nothing to to say about the meaning or value of life. But "atheism" isn't a thing. People are atheists. Which means people who have no God. Ergo, people who have no known justification for believing that life has ultimate meaning or life has value. Unless you have one.

No?

Didn't think so.

People who have no God. . . Ergo, people who have no reason not to eat babies, rape children, and stick cactuses up their asses.

Oh wait, there is a reason. . . it just so happens that people (for the most part) don't LIKE doing any of those things.  They like getting out of bed, acting like their day matters, trying to get laid and fed, and seeking pleasure.

"Because it's in our nature" is sufficient justification for us to do thing things that are . . . in our nature.

[The Grand Nudger]

The breadth of reasons and justifications a person could field to answer that question are effectively limitless, and each one of those options that does not refer to a god is open to atheists -or- theists alike.  It's just a silly objection on it's face.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The breadth of reasons and justifications a person could field to answer that question are effectively limitless, and each one of those options that does not refer to a god is open to atheists -or- theists alike.  It's just a silly objection on it's face.

If they are limitless then you shouldn't have a problem providing one, which you have repeatedly failed to do.