Morality: Objective or subjective?

[Skyler]

Questions for debate:

Is morality objective or subjective? Can we know either way?

Definition of terms:

morality: Differentiation between right and wrong

objective: An entity is objective when it exists independent of whether or not someone believes it.

subjective: An entity is subjective when it only exists if someone believes in it.

[olavisjo]

All of the postings listed below seem to have the same theme. If you don't believe in God, then you have no reason to be moral.

You almost got it, if you don't believe in God, there is no reason why you must be moral. You can still be moral if it makes you feel good, or to impress people or whatever benefits yourself, but there is no reason why you have to do it if you don't want to, it is optional.

Morality is only for those who have a God looking over their shoulder, who will ultimately hold them to account.

Morality is there for anyone who wants it, it is just a little easier if you know that "what you sow is what you reap".

Atheists, if they would be consistent, should do what they like and get away with whatever they can.

The Atheist may do what they like, they need not fear a sky daddy ruining their fun. Just don't underestimate the fuzz.

If there is a God, and if this God's will determines what is right and wrong, then this God's being all-good is no more than His being all-powerful. How can anyone call that an absolute morality? Rather, it's a morality that's completely relative to God's desire. It is might makes right. God is gonna get you if you do wrong, therefore, you should behave.

I agree.

Is that an admirable system of morality?

Admirable or not, it is the way it has to be.

This version of the theist morality can easily be summed up in the children's Christmas song, "He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake. "

I agree.

Many of us denigrate the type of parenting which includes stifling a child's natural propensity to reason morally, as when a father says to a child: "Don't ask me why, just do it!" Yet, it seems clear to me, that this is exactly the sort of father-figure morality which many theists would have our society follow.

Yes, our father-figure god has said that all morality can be reduced to "love your neighbour as yourself". And many theists would have our society follow this simple rule.

There is a tremendous amount of evidence from sociology, psychology and sociobiology that indicates that moral behavior is in many ways hard-wired into us through millions of years of social and biological evolution. This would mean that a human is born ready to act in a moral manner in keeping with the needs and expectations of their society.

I Agree. But he is not obligated to do so if he does not want to and is clever enough to avoid it. It does not mater where our moral behavior comes from, there will be no obligation to do them unless someone is there to make sure that we do them.

We shouldn't be surprised that this will happen - humans have evolved over millions of years as social animals living, surviving, and reproducing together in necessarily cooperative environments. Those groups which can most quickly and easily work together for the benefit of all will, in the long run, survive best. Habits of fair play should then be expected in the children of animals such as ourselves which depend so much on mutual assistance in order to survive.

Yes we can expect such habits, people are usually nice when they want to be, but there is no reason to expect them to be nice when they don't want to.

At least if there is a god in the equation, nobody can cheat because god would know everything. So if you do harm to someone else, you are only doing harm to yourself.
So you can see that theism would offer an ironclad reason to conform, no other system could do that. It is a selfish reason, but a reason none the less.

There is no unambiguous evidence that theists are more moral than non theists. Not only have psychological studies failed to find a significant correlation between frequency of religious worship and moral conduct, but convicted criminals are much more likely to be theists than atheists.

I agree. When all the books are balanced on judgement day, there is going to be a lot more wailing and gnashing of teeth on the theist side of the aisle. Christian hypocrisy is another topic we can talk about on some other day, yuck.

[olavisjo]

It is not so much that the moral position comes from God, it is just that they are his subjective preferences. And if he does exist, he would be the biggest gorilla in the room and we would do whatever he wants just for that reason. But, who can know the mind of God?

Both of the underlined words indicate that morals are subjective. I point this out because I'm aware you consider such to be objective.

No, I had to give up that dog, it would not hunt. It seems that morality is not objective under Athiesim or Christianity.

The 911 freedom fighters have only God to justify their actions to, if they really thought that they were doing the right thing then I am sure God will not condemn them for it. If there is no God, then their problems are over.

How can we know whether God will condemn or not condemn anyone? Based on the writings of man? As these are man's writings, they are no more than laws, subject to change, and thus subjective.

We will not know for certain until we die. If the Atheist is right, then we will never know.

So you can see that theism would offer an ironclad reason to conform, no other system could do that. It is a selfish reason, but a reason none the less.

As you say this, I'm reminded of the Swaggarts, the Jim Joneses, the Bakers, and the what's that guy with the funny shaped mouth that condemned homosexuality and turned out to be one.

Do you mean Ted Haggard ?

If that's what passes for a retraction I suppose I'll hafta settle for it.

No retraction, Christians have a good reason to be moral, but that does not mean that all those who call themselves Christian will be moral.

I know folks are getting tired of me pointing this out, but lacking evidence for any of the thousands of gods proposed throughout history, I must ask how we can think that morals are anything but a human construct.

That is my point, if there is no God then morality is just a human construct, we can all do whatever we want to do.

I fear your "do whatever" angle is an attempt to distort my position. We can't do what harms others because we risk societal collapse if left unchecked. This could be extended to issues of ecology as well.

Nothing wrong with a little societal collapse, do you have any idea how many opportunities for both power and profit can be found in such a situation?

Not tiresome at all, until this God speaks up we are free to do whatever we please. Why should we be nice to others if there is nothing in it for us?

Again with the distorting. WE ARE CONSTRAINED BY THE NEED FOR AN ORDERED SOCIETY.

Let someone else worry about the ordered society, we are going to profiteer, it is time to party!

I have to agree with you, if there is no God, morality would be just whatever we want it to be.

It used to moral to kill folks for heresy. It used to be moral to kill folks for being "witches". It used to be moral to kill folks simply because they rejected God belief.

Oh, yeah, it still is in some parts.

The only reason I can think of that it would be wrong to do those things is if God does not approve, can you think of any other reason?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 17 Post 161:

The 911 freedom fighters have only God to justify their actions to, if they really thought that they were doing the right thing then I am sure God will not condemn them for it. If there is no God, then their problems are over.

How can we know whether God will condemn or not condemn anyone? Based on the writings of man? As these are man's writings, they are no more than laws, subject to change, and thus subjective.

We will not know for certain until we die. If the Atheist is right, then we will never know.

If that's was passes for a retraction I suppose it'll hafta do.

No retraction, Christians have a good reason to be moral, but that does not mean that all those who call themselves Christian will be moral.

As well atheists and folks of other religions.

I know folks are getting tired of me pointing this out, but lacking evidence for any of the thousands of gods proposed throughout history, I must ask how we can think that morals are anything but a human construct.

That is my point, if there is no God then morality is just a human construct, we can all do whatever we want to do.

I fear your "do whatever" angle is an attempt to distort my position. We can't do what harms others because we risk societal collapse if left unchecked. This could be extended to issues of ecology as well.

Nothing wrong with a little societal collapse, do you have any idea how many opportunities for both power and profit can be found in such a situation?

Dance, dodge, duck and weave all you want, you attempted to tie morals into God, and you've failed to show 1) God exists, and 2) Morals come from God.

It used to (be) moral to kill folks for heresy. It used to be moral to kill folks for being "witches". It used to be moral to kill folks simply because they rejected God belief.

Oh, yeah, it still is in some parts.

The only reason I can think of that it would be wrong to do those things is if God does not approve, can you think of any other reason?

For reasons I and others have mentioned that you've failed to refute.

1- If left unchecked this behavior will lead to the collapse of society. Why? Because folks will spend all their time defending themselves and not enough time providing food and shelter.

2- If left unchecked, killing each other will ultimately reduce down to one individual who can't propogate the species (barring scientific advancement).

[McCulloch]

There is something wrong with killing each other. It destroys our selective advantage if it is allowed to be done arbitrarily.

You have not demonstrated that there is anything wrong with killing each other.

I suppose that I have not. Perhaps it has something to do with how we define what is right and what is wrong. You have the the distinct advantage over the atheist. You simply define right as what God wants and wrong as what God does not want. We have to put a bit more thought into it.

If a man is more concerned about collecting the life insurance on his wife, and willing to forgo any selective advantage. Then why should he not do it? He wants the money more than his wife, and accidents happen.

It has to do with our understanding of evolution. Since we have evolved to have moral values, we cannot simply say that we would be willing to forgo the selective advantage and become amoral. We are moral by nature, as we are social by nature.

So far, under Atheism the only reason murder is wrong because we like to play the children's game of "let's pretend". "Let's pretend" that murder is wrong, "let's pretend" that slavery is wrong, "let's pretend" that torturing babies for fun is wrong. And we will insist that everyone pretend along with us, or be punished if they don't.

So far, under theism, the only reason murder is wrong is because we are told by the heavenly father that we should not do it. "Don't commit murder", "Don't commit adultery", "Keep the Sabbath", "Don't wear plaid".

[JoeyKnothead]

Don't wear plaid, hahahahahahaha.

[olavisjo]

I suppose that I have not. Perhaps it has something to do with how we define what is right and what is wrong. You have the the distinct advantage over the atheist. You simply define right as what God wants and wrong as what God does not want. We have to put a bit more thought into it.

We base right and wrong on love only.

If a man is more concerned about collecting the life insurance on his wife, and willing to forgo any selective advantage. Then why should he not do it? He wants the money more than his wife, and accidents happen.

It has to do with our understanding of evolution. Since we have evolved to have moral values, we cannot simply say that we would be willing to forgo the selective advantage and become amoral. We are moral by nature, as we are social by nature.

No, you are committing the genetic fallacy here. Where our morals came from has nothing to do with what they are.

So far, under Atheism the only reason murder is wrong because we like to play the children's game of "let's pretend". "Let's pretend" that murder is wrong, "let's pretend" that slavery is wrong, "let's pretend" that torturing babies for fun is wrong. And we will insist that everyone pretend along with us, or be punished if they don't.

So far, under theism, the only reason murder is wrong is because we are told by the heavenly father that we should not do it. "Don't commit murder", "Don't commit adultery", "Keep the Sabbath", "Don't wear plaid".

That is only half the reason, the other is if we don't obey him he will make our life and possibly death, a living hell.

[olavisjo]

Behavior is just behavior, but morality is an obligation to behave a certain way.

I won't indulge in arbitrary definitions.

If morality was optional behavior, we would never criticise anyone for their moral behavior, so it would seem that morality is obligatory, I can't see it any other way, can you?

Sorry, nothing new to say here.

You post in a thread that asks what morality is and you have nothing to say about what morality is?

If I knew that they were not going to put me in jail for not paying my taxes, I would not pay anymore taxes, why should I? I can find better uses for the money myself.

You could very well realize you pay taxes to ensure you can keep enjoying all the commodities paid by them. But perhaps that is too much to ask. Maybe you could try using it so the guy that isn't going to jail for stealing it doesn't kill you. Or you can pay taxes and be reassured the situation won't likely arise.

I can protect myself better than the government can protect me.

I can just barely love myself, how am I supposed to love those that I hate? Life would be so much easier if there were no God, I would not have to be polite to strangers, I would not have to help people in need, I would not have to be patient arround annoying people etc.

Why do elephants protect their young? Do they have to?

Yes, they have a moral obligation to protect their young.

So a heard that abandons a sick member is behaving immorally?

Only the ones with proper medical training would be immoral for abandoning a sick member.
It seems like you don't know much about elephants. Elephants stay with injured or dying individuals and try to comfort them.

[Beto]

Behavior is just behavior, but morality is an obligation to behave a certain way.

I won't indulge in arbitrary definitions.

If morality was optional behavior, we would never criticise anyone for their moral behavior, so it would seem that morality is obligatory, I can't see it any other way, can you?

Sorry, nothing new to say here.

You post in a thread that asks what morality is and you have nothing to say about what morality is?

Is this intended for readers that DIDN'T read the thread from the beginning and fully realize you failed to acknowledge anything I and others have written so far, which was considerable? There's only so much I'm willing to repeat, and the more I have to, the less credible that makes you look, so take it as a personal favor.

I can protect myself better than the government can protect me.

Congratulations to you and those other alpha males out there.

It seems like you don't know much about elephants.

I'm no elephant expert. Thank you for that piece of information, which doesn't help your case one bit. Much to the contrary. It's a clear indication that belief in gods is completely irrelevant in behaviors described as "moral" by current human standards, so "morality" cannot be associated with "God" unless "God" is accepted as a premise, in which case circularity ensues. Thank you.

[McCulloch]

I suppose that I have not. Perhaps it has something to do with how we define what is right and what is wrong. You have the the distinct advantage over the atheist. You simply define right as what God wants and wrong as what God does not want. We have to put a bit more thought into it.

We base right and wrong on love only.

I doubt that. But, if that is so, then why can't you believe that an atheist could base right and wrong on love? Or do you base your idea of what love is on God?

If a man is more concerned about collecting the life insurance on his wife, and willing to forgo any selective advantage. Then why should he not do it? He wants the money more than his wife, and accidents happen.

It has to do with our understanding of evolution. Since we have evolved to have moral values, we cannot simply say that we would be willing to forgo the selective advantage and become amoral. We are moral by nature, as we are social by nature.

No, you are committing the genetic fallacy here. Where our morals came from has nothing to do with what they are.

How we got our morals has everything to do with what they are.

So far, under Atheism the only reason murder is wrong because we like to play the children's game of "let's pretend". "Let's pretend" that murder is wrong, "let's pretend" that slavery is wrong, "let's pretend" that torturing babies for fun is wrong. And we will insist that everyone pretend along with us, or be punished if they don't.

So far, under theism, the only reason murder is wrong is because we are told by the heavenly father that we should not do it. "Don't commit murder", "Don't commit adultery", "Keep the Sabbath", "Don't wear plaid".

That is only half the reason, the other is if we don't obey him he will make our life and possibly death, a living hell.

So this is olavisjo's summary of theistic morality: It is morally wrong to go against what God has said because if you do, God will punish you, if not in this life, in the next. The only basis by which anyone can know what is morally right or wrong, is that God has decreed it.

Did I get it right?

If I knew that they were not going to put me in jail for not paying my taxes, I would not pay anymore taxes, why should I? I can find better uses for the money myself.

You could very well realize you pay taxes to ensure you can keep enjoying all the commodities paid by them. But perhaps that is too much to ask. Maybe you could try using it so the guy that isn't going to jail for stealing it doesn't kill you. Or you can pay taxes and be reassured the situation won't likely arise.

I can protect myself better than the government can protect me.

No you cannot. If you define government in the broadest possible sense, that is all of the human efforts to regulate ourselves collectively, then without government, you are a solitary human fending for yourself. No money, no rules, no infrastructure. Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". [Thomas Hobbes]

[olavisjo]

We base right and wrong on love only.

I doubt that. But, if that is so, then why can't you believe that an atheist could base right and wrong on love? Or do you base your idea of what love is on God? .

An Atheist can base right and wrong on anything they want, but it will still be ultimately meaningless. If morality is not enforced by anyone then it does not exist.

No, you are committing the genetic fallacy here. Where our morals came from has nothing to do with what they are.

How we got our morals has everything to do with what they are.

If I picked up my morals in the pool hall, would they be true and binding? Remember, our feelings about morality is an illusion.

So this is olavisjo's summary of theistic morality: It is morally wrong to go against what God has said because if you do, God will punish you, if not in this life, in the next. The only basis by which anyone can know what is morally right or wrong, is that God has decreed it.

Did I get it right?

Yes, that is about all there is to it, God has decreed that if we love one another then he will never need to punish us. Love fulfills all our moral obligations to God.

If I knew that they were not going to put me in jail for not paying my taxes, I would not pay anymore taxes, why should I? I can find better uses for the money myself.

You could very well realize you pay taxes to ensure you can keep enjoying all the commodities paid by them. But perhaps that is too much to ask. Maybe you could try using it so the guy that isn't going to jail for stealing it doesn't kill you. Or you can pay taxes and be reassured the situation won't likely arise.

I can protect myself better than the government can protect me.

No you cannot. If you define government in the broadest possible sense, that is all of the human efforts to regulate ourselves collectively, then without government, you are a solitary human fending for yourself. No money, no rules, no infrastructure. Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". [Thomas Hobbes]

That whole train went to the silly side in a hurry.
All that I was saying is that if the government is not going to force me to pay for the services that they provide then I am not going pay it voluntarily. They can hold a bake sale for all I care, but I want a government that collects taxes from all people according to law, none of this pay as you are led to pay.