Why Must Morality Be Objective?

[rookiebatman]

I watch a lot of debates between theists and atheists, and one point that comes up a lot (especially by William Lane Craig, who unfortunately has done a lot of debates) is the Argument from Morality, that without God, we couldn't have an objective sense of morality. The thing that I don't get is, they act like saying "if atheists are right, then morality would only be subjective" somehow proves their point. It seems to me that theists are presupposing that morality is objective, and so they would conclude that any system which indicates subjective morality must therefore be false. But why? Where's the support for the initial premise that morality is objective? Not that it should be, or that the world would be better if it was, but that objective morality is a known and accepted fact, which means that any line of thought which leads to subjective morality must be false.

Also, as a preemptive follow-up question, if you believe that morality is objective, how do you rectify that with the observable fact that people can't agree on what that objective morality is? Even people who say that the Bible is the objective source for morality can't agree on interpretations and nuances and what parts of the Old Testament should still be followed or not.

[Prisoner of the Sun]

I may not post often, but I do ghost these boards frequently. The question of objective moral values was disposed of many years before the birth of Joshua (Jesus) by Plato in his dialogue "Euthyphro". In this seminal philosophical work, Plato asked the question: "Is an action moral (good) because the God(s) ordain it so, or do the God(s) ordain it moral because it is indeed moral (good)?" Theology is still grappling with this dilemma. If the former, then the structure of morality is completely arbitrary (purely the whim of the Creator). If the latter, then moral values are independent of God. The horns of the dilemma: Morality is either arbitrarily decided by God (i.e., it is just as likely to condone torturing babies to death as moral, as nurturing them), or it is independent of God. The argument that God is just Good, and therefore cannot ordain anything except good, merely recesses the argument one step. In this scenario, God's goodness just IS (arbitrary), or He has all the attributes of goodness (again, independent of God Himself).

[Beans]

I watch a lot of debates between theists and atheists, and one point that comes up a lot (especially by William Lane Craig, who unfortunately has done a lot of debates) is the Argument from Morality, that without God, we couldn't have an objective sense of morality. The thing that I don't get is, they act like saying "if atheists are right, then morality would only be subjective" somehow proves their point. It seems to me that theists are presupposing that morality is objective, and so they would conclude that any system which indicates subjective morality must therefore be false. But why? Where's the support for the initial premise that morality is objective? Not that it should be, or that the world would be better if it was, but that objective morality is a known and accepted fact, which means that any line of thought which leads to subjective morality must be false.

Also, as a preemptive follow-up question, if you believe that morality is objective, how do you rectify that with the observable fact that people can't agree on what that objective morality is? Even people who say that the Bible is the objective source for morality can't agree on interpretations and nuances and what parts of the Old Testament should still be followed or not.

I see the answer to all of your questions is that the only appropriate Christian teaching is that God alone is the reference for objective morality. And that for the purpose of a high standard for us to all shoot for through our disagreements.

I don't know for certain that there is not both objective and subjective morality, neither conflicting the other. But I do suspect that there is.

[Donray]

No one has been able to list any absolute objective morals that God will always punish with hell and never forgive. After all, forgiveness is subjective and not objective.

Also, since god is vindictive and a murderer does that mean these are moral values from God?

What about slavery that is OK by the bible? What about rape that god said to actually do to virgin children.

Another thing if you believe the bible is that Jesus said one does not have to obey the laws and that should include the ten commandments.

[lamar1234]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Laws should not be based on what we believe to be "moral" or "immoral". That is simply not necessary, and actually a very bad way of making laws.

Social laws should be based purely and solely on "Protection of the Citizens of the Society".

That's all we need. We don't need "morality".

Should it be illegal to murder? Absolutely, because to allow the citizens of the society to murder each other would not be protecting them. So no concept of morality is even required to make a law against murder.

Same is true of rape, and any other activities that would cause harm to members of the society.

Should we use the Bible's preachments on rape victims and their rapists?

How about theft or stealing? Well, a society is based on trade, and even "fair trade". We recognize money, and ownership. Therefore laws against thievery make sense to protect the citizens rights to ownership.

Then why did Jesus advise people to give away all their worldly possessions? Jesus sure did recognize money and ownership. He indicated that the possessing of money and ownership of many things would EXCLUDE someone from Heaven.

So, we agree, then, that the 'War on Drugs' has been and is some of the worst money our government has ever spent?

You're for the legalization of marijuana?

Softer laws on non-violent drug offenders?

Should bars have to have 'last call'?

Why is prostitution a crime, then?

You're against every 'blue' law in the books?

[Provoker]

No one has been able to list any absolute objective morals that God will always punish with hell and never forgive. After all, forgiveness is subjective and not objective.

Also, since god is vindictive and a murderer does that mean these are moral values from God?

What about slavery that is OK by the bible? What about rape that god said to actually do to virgin children.

Another thing if you believe the bible is that Jesus said one does not have to obey the laws and that should include the ten commandments.

Hi Donray:
The national laws of national Israel were the 613 Mitzvoth laws. Every nation had national laws, and there was nothing special about Israel's. The penalties for breaking the 613 laws were written right into those laws.
The 10 commandments were simply a national standard which, if Israel maintained, would cause Israel to become the great, everlasting, nation it was chosen to be. The penalty for the national breaking of the 10 commandments, is found in the statements that a nation divided against itself will surely fall, or a house divided against itself will not stand.
The wages of sin(national) is death(national), but the gift of God is everlasting life(national). God had promised that His chosen nation will be established forever, but His chosen nation became divided against itself and fell. The gift of God which will give God's chosen nation everlasting life is, the new covenant, which God will "graciously" make with resurrected Israel. The new covenant will be accompanied by God's writing of the 10 commandments on all the hearts of resurrected Israel. Israelites will then do by nature the things contained in the 10 commandments. Israel will never sin(nationally) again, will never become divided against itself again, and will therefore go on to become the great everlasting nation it was chosen to be.
My conclusion is that the 613 national laws of national Israel, were arbitrarily based on the common crimes of the day, and they ceased to exist as national laws when nation they applied to fell into non-existence.
The 10 commandments continue to be a good national standard for any nation, but they do not apply to Israel because Israel does not exist. However, when Israel is resurrected from the dead, and God makes His new covenant with it, and all Israelites do by nature the things contained in the 10, the law will be, for all intents and purposes, fulfilled.
That is what I take from the bible story:-)

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 1 by rookiebatman]

I have not read entirety of replies but will add my 2 cents even if already said by another.

I see a baseline of morality(acceptable behaviors) that is objective across all social beings not just humans. All social animals kill each other for various reason but murder, is not accepted in any social dynamic in nature. All observational accounts of murder in a social paradigm is met with either banishment or death by the group. This is not unique to humans at all ever. Since we live on a planet with various other social animals an objective baseline can be established since cross specie comparison can be made on social interactions. To only compare human to human is subjective not objective in my opinion.

People do agree on morality or we wouldn't be able to live together. I our disagreements are falsehoods of the ego and morality in my opinion is innate to all social beings this is a must. Now were morality comes from and sorry stupid ideo's that stem from tradition, ego, religion, cultural bias, ect... that we all have are not actually moral dilemma's but are of opinion/belief/faith. If there was such a huge moral dilemma how can we all live together, simple we wouldn't and human society would not exist at all ever.

As for such ideo's as moral sexual behavior are to me not of morality but of personal choice, but since the majority want to be heard, important, or belong people force their choice on others as being a moral way or morally better, once you succumb to forcing a view on other the moral high ground is non existent.

I agree with Divine Insights in a way morality is nothing more than a social dynamic for survival and public safety is number one beyond feeling offended to something. A gay person hurts no one by being gay, yet gets hurt by those who say it is immoral. This is utterly absurd, such as many points for supposed moral disagreement. We have acceptable behaviors that are instinctual because we are social beings, my success or standard of living is directly tied to others, always was, and more than likely always will be. Even a hermit cannot exist without others cooperating and be left alone without others backing off and letting he/she be. What has come about is humans feelings being a way to know what is moral yet due to ego we often forget. What I like is not what all people like or vice versa. This is not morality but common decency or good manners, to help all adhere to our base morality. Humans seem to feel too much about things in my opinion and often cloud judgement with emotion and than bring such feeling as a definition of morality. I do this and yes it irritates me. Morality is not laws, laws are applied ethics for most part based on social morality and/or public safety.

[Mesopatamia]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Who decides which things will be the laws? For example, what you call murder, someone else may say that they were just helping their friend die because they felt they would be happier dead. If nothing is "wrong" than as long as murdering can be justified with a good enough argument or twisting, then how can you enforce that law? It just doesn't make sense to say there should be "no morality". Why even build civilization?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Who decides which things will be the laws? For example, what you call murder, someone else may say that they were just helping their friend die because they felt they would be happier dead. If nothing is "wrong" than as long as murdering can be justified with a good enough argument or twisting, then how can you enforce that law? It just doesn't make sense to say there should be "no morality". Why even build civilization?

I'm not saying there should be no morality. You are more than welcome to have all the personal moral values you like. I certainly have my own personal moral values.

The problem comes in when we try to push our personal subjective moral values onto other people.

You mentioned "assisted suicide" as though it should be considered "murder". In fact, it typically is considered murder by law.

However does that make it "immoral"? No, it doesn't. Just because it's against the law doesn't make it immoral, it just makes it illegal.

Whether it's moral or not is a subjective personal judgement.

If a person genuinely wants to die and is fully aware of their choice they should be able to commit suicide with respect, IMHO. I personally don't see anything immoral about a person who is of sound mind taking their own life if they have chosen that this is what they want to do. In fact, I think it's absolutely absurd to claim that they are criminal for having taken their own life.

Similarly if someone wishes to die and is incapable of taking their own life I think it should be legal (and moral) for someone to assist them in ending their life if this is what they sincerely wish for.

In fact, people have these kinds of arguments all the time. Not about whether or not it should merely be "legal or illegal" but they argue with other over whether or not it should even be considered to be moral or immoral.

But the question of morality is entirely subjective. It's like arguing over whether ice cream tastes better flavored Chocolate or Strawberry. It's a matter of personal opinion. Period.

You have no right to tell me that euthanasia is absolutely immoral under all possible circumstances. If I disagree then I disagree. Period.

You have no more right to dictate morality to me than you have to tell me what flavor of Ice Cream I should like.

You can participate in making laws and enforcing them so that I must obey or face the consequences. But you can't dictate morality to me.

If I don't think it's wrong for a person to end their own life if they so choose then that's going to be my moral standard no matter what you enforce onto me.

You can make laws, but you can't dictate morality.

~~~~~~

I should add here also, that I would never support a law based solely on even my own moral standards.

For example, let's imagine that I think that being gay is immoral. (I don't, but let's just pretend I did). I would still never support putting that moral value into LAW because other people may not agree with my moral value on that particular issue. So why should I push my moral values onto them by law?

Some thing goes with polygamy. I personally have no desire to be in a polygamous intimate relationship. I'm quite happy with pure monogamy. I'm not sure that I would say that polygamy is "immoral", but it's not something that I'm personally interested in.

Still I see no reason to make polygamy illegal just because it's not for me. Why should I push my personal preferences onto other people?

In fact, I see absolutely no secular reason why polygamy should be illegal providing that everyone involve is totally consensual and no one is being coerced into doing something they really don't want to do.

And that latter requirement has nothing at all to do with "morality". It has to do with protecting the FREEDOM of those who do not wish to be coerced.

I'm all for freedom and human RIGHTS, in the sense that everyone in a civilized society should have the right to be protected against abuse, which would include being coerced into doing things they really don't want to do.

We don't need a concept of "morality" to endorse freedom and the right to chose. We can do that simply by popular consensus. How many humans are going to endorse being made to do things they don't consent to?

[Mesopatamia]

[Replying to post 28 by Divine Insight]

My point wasn't about whether assisted suicide is right or wrong. I am saying that people will always twist the truth to benefit themselves. The problem with everyone living out their own personal morals as they choose is that one person's moral right will always come head to head with another person's moral right. If we all live under different morals, freedom would be the last thing you would end up with. Your rights will eventually infringe on my rights. Children always have to be considered, as well. They are often the victims of people doing living their lives "the way they want to" with no regard to how their kids are negatively impacted. I have no specific examples here that i am thinking of, but just in general, the more "free" we get as a society, the more crimes against children seem to occur.

[Divine Insight]

The problem with everyone living out their own personal morals as they choose is that one person's moral right will always come head to head with another person's moral right.

Where did anyone say anything about people being free to live out their own moral values?

I certainly didn't. Nor did I ever suggest such a thing.

I have moral values that I cannot live out because they would be against secular law. So my moral values are being severely hampered by secular law and always have been.

I don't agree with all the secular laws. I abide by them simply because I don't want to have to face the consequences of having to deal with police coming after me if I don't.

For example, I'm totally against Property Tax. But I pay my property taxes anyway to avoid legal actions being taken against me. (in this case this law has absolutely nothing at all to do with morality)

I'm against mandatory car insurance too, but I buy it anyway because it's the law. And I don't want to get fined or have my driver's licenses suspended for driving without insurance, so I pay for it. I have never had an automobile accident in my entire life. And I wouldn't bother buying car insurance if it wasn't required by law. Again, these are laws that have absolutely nothing to do with morality. Except potentially I could suggest that it's "immoral" that I should have to pay for car insurance when I'm not having accidents. I am an extremely safe driver. I've been driving for at least 47 years or more. Never had an accident. Especially nothing serious enough that ever had to be turned into any insurance company.

And when it come to morality, I see absolutely nothing immoral about smoking marijuana. But once again, I don't bother to do it precisely because it's illegal and I don't want to take the risk of being brought up on "drug charges", and once again being fined, or whatever. So even though I see nothing wrong with this morally, I am not FREE to practice this behavior without potentially being threatened or harassed by secular law.

So who's free to "live out their own moral values"?

You are free to have whatever moral values you so choose. But whether you can actually live them out without being arrested by secular law is a totally different question.

I have no specific examples here that i am thinking of, but just in general, the more "free" we get as a society, the more crimes against children seem to occur.

"Crimes" against children sound like they are already "illegal". Otherwise why call them crimes? Perhaps you just mean abuse or atrocities?

In any case. I think you would need to give a specific example to make this meaningful.

I'm not currently aware of anyone who is free to commit crimes against Children in the name of morality, other than possibly religious people who brainwash their children to believe their unproven religions from a very early age. Many people consider that to be "Child Abuse", including myself.

I feel that I was in fact, a "Victim" of Christianity in precisely this way. I don't blame my parents of course, because they too were victims of precisely the very same child abuse.

So actually, "Freedom of Religion" can be child abuse. Because in a very real way "Freedom of Religion" actually gives the parents the right to indoctrinate their young children into an unproven religion whilst the parents outright LIE to the children proclaiming that the religion is "TRUTH".

Lying to young impressionable children should be considered child abuse, IMHO.

Where is the child's "Freedom of Religion" then?

They shouldn't even be taught about religion until they are adults. Then they should be given an overview of all world religions, including atheism and allowed to make their own choice.