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.

[Beto]

-- "Morality" is the set of human behaviors that offers the best chance of aiding in a society's progress. --

Okay, that is as good as any definition for now, but my concern is why should anyone buy into it.

Well now, that's a different matter altogether. I'm not going into the validity of the Theory of Evolution here, but if need be, one CAN come up with a naturalistic "objective morality" that does not need gods to set the criteria. The criteria is set by natural selection. Some behaviors help a community thrive, others don't. Plain and simple. What they actually are is immaterial to the criteria as it was set. This goes to demonstrate you cannot logically infer "God" from "objective morality".

As long as it gives me what I want, I will go along but when it no longer satisfies my lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride then I will opt out and make sure that nobody knows that I cheated.

It's understandable if you want to project your shortcomings to other people, but for my part, even without believing in gods, and in a position to be immoral when no one's looking, I don't get these urges you describe. Without a religious education, I grew up to be quite content with what is available to me, and to adequately understand human relations.

[olavisjo]

We don't want to eliminate ourselves, we just want a more comfortable place in the pool.
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.

But your position here says nothing about the validity of such beliefs. Where others and me have shown that morals are subjective, and specifically why the morality of murder is independent of god belief, aren't we closer to providing the answer the OP seeks?

True enough, if God does not exist then the fear of God would not be a reason to behave yourself. If God does not exist, we can behave any way we please, including manipulating and forcing other people to play by our rules. Anything goes.

So, when we equate a given moral position as coming from god, how can we elevate such above being a human construct?

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?

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.

This says nothing about those who would do harm in their god's name. Nor does it implicate morals as somehow originating with this god, or even with the simple belief in the god.

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.

I reject this line of thinking because doing harm to others is doing harm to others. God or no god, if I kill someone I expect to be held to the full measure of the law. And this law is good for reasons I've stated previously.

What, are you nuts? If you get away with it, don't go turning yourself in.

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 ?

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.

If religion offered an "ironclad" reason, wouldn't we expect that there would be some evidence for such? If a proposed God wishes us to act in a certain way, why is it that only the preachers and adherents are aware of this? Before you respond, if you wish to use the Bible, I must first ask you to prove why all other religious texts should be discounted.

I think that most of these texts say the same thing "be nice to each other".

If I didn't want my young'n doing something, I'd tell him personally. I wouldn't run up the road and ask some stranger to tell him. "This is a sign", or "That is a sign" don't cut it either. I've got an eighth grade education, surely God would explain his wishes to me in a manner I can understand.

Eight years of schooling is plenty, it is better than them Universities, where they take a person and educate them till they are absolutely stupid.
If your young'n actually do anything you tell them, let me know your secret. If I want mine to do something, I think if I tell them NOT to do it I will have a better chance of having them do it.

I know it's tiresome, but until this God can be shown to exist, I don't know how in hell's half acre we're ever gonna know what this god's wishes are.

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?

As we lack this evidence, we look at the evidence that some have presented in this thread. As a reasoned, logical position, I don't see how anyone can refute the idea that morals are a product of individual interpretation, and individual interpretation expressed through society as a whole.

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

[olavisjo]

I'm not going into the validity of the Theory of Evolution here, but if need be, one CAN come up with a naturalistic "objective morality" that does not need gods to set the criteria. The criteria is set by natural selection. Some behaviors help a community thrive, others don't. Plain and simple. What they actually are is immaterial to the criteria as it was set. This goes to demonstrate you cannot logically infer "God" from "objective morality".

Behavior is just behavior, but morality is an obligation to behave a certain way.
For example I have a moral obligation to the government to pay my taxes, if I don't they will come after me.
I don't have an obligation to evolution, it may have made me what I am, but it requires nothing from me.
Society can impose obligations on me, but they can never take away my ability to go against the order they establish.
Only God can obligate me to the impossible task of loving all people, even loving my enemies. 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.

As long as it gives me what I want, I will go along but when it no longer satisfies my lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride then I will opt out and make sure that nobody knows that I cheated.

It's understandable if you want to project your shortcomings to other people, but for my part, even without believing in gods, and in a position to be immoral when no one's looking, I don't get these urges you describe. Without a religious education, I grew up to be quite content with what is available to me, and to adequately understand human relations.

None of us really know what we are made of until we get tested, I just hope that you don't disappoint yourself when that day comes upon you.

[Beto]

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

I won't indulge in arbitrary definitions.

For example I have a moral obligation to the government to pay my taxes, if I don't they will come after me.

You have a moral obligation if you feel it's wrong not to pay your taxes. Whether or not someone would come after you is irrelevant.

I don't have an obligation to evolution, it may have made me what I am, but it requires nothing from me.

Just call it "God" and fantasize some human attributes to it.

Society can impose obligations on me, but they can never take away my ability to go against the order they establish.

Neither can "God", apparently. Big difference.

Only God can obligate me to the impossible task of loving all people, even loving my enemies.

An enemy cannot be "loved" by definition. If you love them, they're not your enemies. It is quite impossible to "love your enemies".

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?

None of us really know what we are made of until we get tested, I just hope that you don't disappoint yourself when that day comes upon you.

I don't presume to be able to think clearly under some hypothetical situations. Right now I can.

[Goat]

so, I apologize.

Accepted.

-- "Morality" is the set of human behaviors that offers the best chance of aiding in a society's progress. --

Okay, that is as good as any definition for now, but my concern is why should anyone buy into it. As long as it gives me what I want, I will go along but when it no longer satisfies my lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride then I will opt out and make sure that nobody knows that I cheated.

I give up killing other people of society, and society then helps protect me against others that would do me harm. It is in my own best interest not to harm others, so I won't be harmed in return.

Your position is the same as above, and I will go along with the program when there are benefits to be had, but when a golden opportunity to cheat with minimum risk of getting caught falls into my lap, I will take it. Why should I not?

The jails are full of people who cheated with 'a minimal risk of getting caught'. Do you really want that risk?

[McCulloch]

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. Morality is only for those who have a God looking over their shoulder, who will ultimately hold them to account. Atheists, if they would be consistent, should do what they like and get away with whatever they can.

The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.

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. Is that an admirable system of morality? 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. "

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.

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. This morality is not sourced from a spiritual God but in our evolutionary biology. There are two principle tendencies which form the foundation of the rest of our morality; both of them can be observed not only in our nearest primate relatives, but also in very young children: empathy and fairness. Spontaneous sharing of pain can be observed in very young toddlers and infants who observe another person in distress. Behaviors in the earliest ages begin with whimpering or crying, and eventually progress into active efforts to provide some sort of solace, like touching or offering an important possession. All of this appears naturally, none of it the result of indoctrination on the part of parents. Fairness as well is not something which parents may create by prodding or ordering children - instead it is something which they manage to work out among themselves in cooperative play. Our children work out rules of play and sharing which will prove most mutually beneficial to 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.

True enough, if God does not exist then the fear of God would not be a reason to behave yourself. If God does not exist, we can behave any way we please, including manipulating and forcing other people to play by our rules. Anything goes.

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.

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.

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?

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

But, if Atheism is true "The act we call murder is not wrong".

There is simply no reason why any killing would be wrong under Atheism.

I'm simply pointing out what he's arguing because I think you missed it. If there is no God, then right and wrong only exist in your head. They have no meaning outside it.

As long as it gives me what I want, I will go along but when it no longer satisfies my lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride then I will opt out and make sure that nobody knows that I cheated.

Your position is the same as above, and I will go along with the program when there are benefits to be had, but when a golden opportunity to cheat with minimum risk of getting caught falls into my lap, I will take it. Why should I not?

________________________________________

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 nontheists. 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.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 16 Post 151:

True enough, if God does not exist then the fear of God would not be a reason to behave yourself. If God does not exist, we can behave any way we please, including manipulating and forcing other people to play by our rules. Anything goes.

To a point. When our behavior risks other's property and life, then we must place limits to ensure we don't spend all our time protecting ourselves and our stuff.

>my underlining<
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.

So, we should not fret the mind of something we know little to nothing about. We should fret what it takes to make a well ordered society based on what we can know.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 16 Post 155:

A brilliant post McCulloch. As you point out, children work out 'morals' before really realizing what a 'moral' is. They will do so with or without religion.

[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?

For example I have a moral obligation to the government to pay my taxes, if I don't they will come after me.

You have a moral obligation if you feel it's wrong not to pay your taxes. Whether or not someone would come after you is irrelevant.

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.

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.

[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.

For example I have a moral obligation to the government to pay my taxes, if I don't they will come after me.

You have a moral obligation if you feel it's wrong not to pay your taxes. Whether or not someone would come after you is irrelevant.

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 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?