Objective Morality

[AJG]

This seems to be the go-to card that Christian apologists are playing nowadays.  They'll try to pin atheists down by forcing them to admit that without God (their god of course), one cannot label anything as good or evil.  This is usually followed by an argument like "Well, if you think there is no objective evil, what right do you have to say eating babies is wrong?"

 

Well, I say fuck that.  I can call Hitler evil with or without God and if you don't like it, tough shit!  The Golden Rule predates Jesus by over a half millennium and it is sufficient to know if something is good or evil.

 

What say you?  Does objective morality exist?  If so, is this a good argument for the existence of God?

[MerryG]

I know that some here differ, but I'm with you. I believe that very, very basic principles of objective morality do exist and I agree that they're decently summed up in the golden rule. Beyond that, most morality (including of course everything religionists believe to be moral or immoral) is flexible, man-made, and used for convenience or control.

[MerryG]

BTW, I also believe that the whole christian argument you cite is just another form of verbal trickery. Just the latest version of christians' smugness about their own "cleverness." ("Boy, hey, I sure did outargue that dumb atheist, didn't I?")

 

Not to mention that the "objective morality" they get from their god is a both a mess of subjectivity AND a horror story.

[centauri]

This seems to be the go-to card that Christian apologists are playing nowadays.  They'll try to pin atheists down by forcing them to admit that without God (their god of course), one cannot label anything as good or evil.  This is usually followed by an argument like "Well, is you think there is no objective evil, what right do you have to say eating babies is wrong?"

 

Well, I say fuck that.  I can call Hitler evil with or without God and if you don't like it, tough shit!  The Golden Rule predates Jesus by over a half millennium and that it is sufficient to know if something is good or evil.

 

What say you?  Does objective morality exist?  If so, is this a good argument for the existence of God?

They like to blow holy smoke and spout righteous proclamations, but in the end they trip themselves up.

They reject the law of God, picking and choosing which parts are binding and which parts are obsolete.

The problem is that no part of the law is ever declared obsolete in the Old Testament.

For example, God's law states that eating unclean animals is abomination.

Christians ignore this code for moral behavior and pretend "Jesus" did away with this regulation.

If that's really true, (which it isn't) then moral behavior is defined differently in one time period than another.

That renders the law relative, not absolute.

[AJG]

BTW, I also believe that the whole christian argument you cite is just another form of verbal trickery. Just the latest version of christians' smugness about their own "cleverness." ("Boy, hey, I sure did outargue that dumb atheist, didn't I?")

 

Not to mention that the "objective morality" they get from their god is a both a mess of subjectivity AND a horror story.

 

Yes, exactly.  And if drowning the entire planet because the humans YOU created turned out shitty is objectively good, then I'll take my subjective morality straight please.

[TrueFreedom]

One can be a moral absolutist or a moral realist without subscribing to divine command theory.  Sam Harris appears to be interested in establishing an objective morality scientifically.  I find ethical questions to be completely subjective.

[RogueScholar]

You need to ask said Christians why they don't go around stoning people who work on Sunday to death? This is clearly outlined in the bible and therefore is a moral action. There are many other examples you could also use. Really push them to answer and do not let them get away with the whole Old Testament argument. Jesus didn't invalidate the Old Testament, so it's still a valid source of Christian morality. Why don't they go around killing homosexuals, sabbath workers and cotton/linen wearers? Because they have an innate sense of morality that let's them know all that stuff is harmful and inherently wrong. Most religious people have this and clearly it's a good thing. If a Christian will not do an action that their religion clearly says is moral, then said Christian used a moral system outside of their religion to determine said action was harmful and wrong.

[mymistake]

If there was no God to give us objective morality then how could anybody say it was wrong for God to order the death of Job's children just so that God could win a bet?

 

Without a God to give us objective morality who could say it was wrong for God to harden Pharaoh's heart just so God could unleash plagues and kill thousands?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I contend that a sense of basic objective morality evolved in our species for the benefit of working together within a social structure.  I would argue that such things as empathy, compassion, sadness, and all other universally human traits evolved as guides to help us understand and abide by the unwritten rules of our shared morality.  Some of these traits seem to be observable within the animal kingdom, especially among higher primates, suggesting that they are capable of a certain level of morality themselves.  Objective morality was an evolutionary necessity if our species was to survive.

 

In so far as the morality of the christian god, I don't think the idea of hating your own family in order to serve him would be a beneficial value for me to teach my son.  Especially given that hate is equated with murder in the eyes of the lord.

[Roz]

Above all, do no harm.  That's my subjective take on all of this.  Take the 9th commandment, don't lie.

If I lied in my workplace about a project, that puts harm on the company and myself, that's wrong to me.

If I lied to protect Jews in 1939, that puts harm on me but might potentially save lives.  That's right to me.

[TrueFreedom]

Objective morality was an evolutionary necessity if our species was to survive.

 

We've inherited a majority consensus regarding behaviors benefiting most of our species.  Does that imply objectivity?  Does compassion exist outside of the mind?  Is there a perfect morality out there waiting to be discovered?

[Ousian]

Absolute morality does not exist in my opinion.  Moral standards do exist, but they are instruments of society intended to benefit mankind.  They have the appearance of being universal sometimes because what benefits one society benefits every society.

[seeker001]

I think that regardless of culture and one's opinion on the death penalty that we can agree that indiscriminate murder is counter productive.  To attack someone is likely going to make an individual look like a threat to other people and therefore other people will seek to remove the threat since most people have a sense of self-preservation.  The same thing with stealing, people do not like to be stolen from and will retaliate against the thief (or who they think is the thief).  I believe that enlightened self-interest is the foundation of civilization, we need to treat each other well or else we will treat each other poorly and create a shithole community to live in.  Which is why we have laws to act as a guideline that we live by.

 

Are they perfect, no because perfection does not exist. As long as we all have our own opinions as how things ought to be we will have disagreements.  Is this a bad thing, no as long as there is compromise and reason.  Maybe the old ways isn't necessarily better. In the world of nature it is adapt or die because the universe does not care about sentimentalism.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Objective morality was an evolutionary necessity if our species was to survive.

 

We've inherited a majority consensus regarding behaviors benefiting most of our species.  Does that imply objectivity?  Does compassion exist outside of the mind?  Is there a perfect morality out there waiting to be discovered?

 

I take objectivity to mean that objective thought can be applied in making a decision.  As an example:  I see someone crying and feel compassion toward that person.  But what do I do about it?  This is where I begin to place the emotion into the context of thought.  I might eventually decide to walk away, or ask the person why they are crying.  I might even decide that saying such a hurtful thing as to have made that person start crying in the first place is an action I should avoid in future.

 

Whether compassion exists outside the mind is of little relevance to me; I'm no philosopher.  I don't believe that perfect morality exists.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

I don't know if there is any such thing as objective morality, but it doesn't seem likely. Even if there is some eternal, conscious being that created everything and calls itself God, any moral standard created by him/her/it could be subjective anyway. If this being (God) subjectively defines morality, then the moral standard put in place by him/her/it would certainly not be objective. 

 

 

This seems to be the go-to card that Christian apologists are playing nowadays.  They'll try to pin atheists down by forcing them to admit that without God (their god of course), one cannot label anything as good or evil.  This is usually followed by an argument like "Well, is you think there is no objective evil, what right do you have to say eating babies is wrong?"

 

If an eternal, creator God exists, but defines morality subjectively, then the above argument used by apologists fails. The above argument definitely fails if it is used to defend the existence of the Christian god. In the Bible, the Christian god obviously defines morality subjectively, on his own terms. Finding examples of this in the Bible would be easy. Because of this, when a Christian apologist tries to use the above argument, their argument could easily be turned around to pin down the apologist.

[midniterider]

This seems to be the go-to card that Christian apologists are playing nowadays.  They'll try to pin atheists down by forcing them to admit that without God (their god of course), one cannot label anything as good or evil.  This is usually followed by an argument like "Well, is you think there is no objective evil, what right do you have to say eating babies is wrong?"

 

Well, I say fuck that.  I can call Hitler evil with or without God and if you don't like it, tough shit!  The Golden Rule predates Jesus by over a half millennium and that it is sufficient to know if something is good or evil.

 

What say you?  Does objective morality exist?  If so, is this a good argument for the existence of God?

 

First of all, babies are delicious. :-) jk. Actually eating babies is wrong, but it IS ok to snip off the end a of a baby's penis...I think priests snack on these.

 

So God says, "Thou shalt not kill." Then he kills people or orders the killing of people. So is killing good or evil? If, like it says in the bible that God creates good and evil, then is God good or evil? If God allows Satan to exist , is God good or evil?

 

Complex issues cannot necessarily be assigned simple black and white answers. Situations arise that seem to present exceptions to the 'rule.' Is killing always bad? Is assisted suicide good or evil? What about abortion? How about the death penalty? What if a burglar breaks into your house and tries to attack you? Is it wrong to kill him?

 

Objective morality is just an idea. Just like God is an idea. Neither one exist as an independent entity. Morality is just a set of ideas we have decided upon that allow us to live in harmony with each other. Our particular morality also allows us to ignore other cultures and the effects our culture has on these other cultures.

 

"Well, if you think there is no objective evil, what right do you have to say eating babies is wrong?" - Perhaps you could burp right after someone says this. :-)

 

Christians are so used to being controlled by their church, their pastor, their bible, they have no will to initiate any thought of their own. First, you have the right to say whatever you like. Then you can bring up Freedom of Speech, which says you have the right to say whatever you like. You can also cite common sense, which is what society agrees on is right and wrong. God has not raised one single child. Whether or not a Christian wants to admit it, Christian and non-Christian parents raise their children. Christians would not just say a prayer to God then send their three year old out into the world. And you know, Christian parents raise their children according to secular society rules. Christians grow up and live exactly like their non-Christian counterparts, getting jobs, raising families...buying cars, houses, boats, and generally ignoring Matthew 19:21.

 

Morality is just our attempt to not cause harm to others.  Why do Christians think that God can be the only author of morality? "Objective morality is defined by God" is an interesting point to debate, but the reality of it is non-religious people are good people not because God zapped everyone with niceness at birth but because we have been raised that way by a parental figure. If we were not raised to generally respect the lives of others then we end up in prison, whether we are Christians or not.

 

But if someone is unsure whether or not there is an objective morality that proves the existence of God, just ask him, "Hello, God, I have a question....hello? Are you there?......"

[Aggie]

Christians/Jews have often proclaimed loudly and fiercely that they had absolute truth, with later generations of God's people claiming that their predecessors were gravely and obviously wrong on basics.  This is done within the same denomination many times.

 

Some examples:

 

  (1) Is stoning people and burning them to death wrong?  OT says many times yes, Christians used to say yes (to burning in particular), now the vast majority see that as gravely sinful.

  (2) Is holding slaves OK?  Beating slaves?  In OT it's fine, NT it's fine, patristic era it's fine.  Growing sense that bad to enslave Christians, but still strong sense that non-Christians are OK to enslave until the abolutionist movement got going in the 17th and 18th centuries.  (Church fathers and canonized saints were slaveholders without scandal.  Leaders of the Great Awakening like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield supported. Were they full of the Holy Spirit, or not?)

  (3) Is polygamy permissible?  OT yes, NT appears not.  (Although the proof-texts on it are sort of weak.)

  (4) Is Saturday the Sabbath?  Yes, in OT and if 7th Day Adventist.  Or it's Sunday, or there is no longer a Sabbath.

  (5) Can you attack a city and slaughter all of the inhabitants?  Yes, in OT.  Not really discussed in NT.  Done sometimes in medieval and Reformation times with OT seen as justification.  Now almost universally decried.

  (6) Is birth control sinful?  Pretty much all Christians until 1930's= yes, a heinous sin.  Why doesn't the Holy Spirit convict people consistently across generations and cultures?  Would not that be a sign of absolute truth??

  (7) Is it sinful for women to go without headcoverings?  In prior centuries, yes.  The ditching of the "Easter bonnet" seems to be a relatively new notion.

  (8) Is it sinful for a woman to lead a church?  Patristic, medieval, Reformation churches= yes.  Now, "a woman should not teach or hold authority over a man" often means that a woman can teach and have authority over a man.  And it's often narrow-minded and unspiritual to think otherwise.

  (9) Is torture permissible?  In OT and NT evidently, yes.  "Cruel and unusual punishment" was commonplace in Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox countries-- which is why it got into the Bill of Rights.  Why did canonized saints not notice that torture was wrong?

  (10) Can you kill heretics?  In OT yes.  NT, not so clear (I would argue no probably).  According to canonized saints, medieval church, and most Reformers, yes-- although Reformers generally weren't as bad.  (Were they full of the Holy Spirit, or not?)

  (11) Is making images wrong?  OT says no (although there are cherubim on the ark and in the Temple curiously enough), early church appears to have got increasingly more comfortable with images as time progressed, Catholic and Orthodox say that God made an image of Himself thus changing the economy of images, some Protestants won't even have symbols, etc.

  (12) Is Justification by faith alone THE gospel?  Patristic and medieval churches missing this interpretation until the Reformation somehow...

  (13) The homosexual marriage issue was not even a consideration, now many devout Christians have taken up the cause...

 

It just seems like a slogan to me.  An absolute claim with the most relative (and tenuous) proof...  

[Guest afireinside]

To me morality is a natural outcome of evolution and allowing us to live as a community.

 

Were the Jews the only race/culture who had morality?

 

While God was dishing out his moral commandments was the rest of humanity completely without morals?

 

I think other cultures at the time of Moses were developing the same morals naturally for the good of their family and society and it is still a work in progress obviously.

 

How could non-theistic cultures come across morality if it was exclusively from Yahweh who didn't care about cultures outside of Judaism?

 

It's bullshit to say only God gives us morality when it occured without God in the picture and the comparative morality of other secular/pagan cultures may condemn the atrocities of Gods so called morality.

 

Did God give morality to animals too? They seem to have their own slightly less refined morality. Why though would God create the animals with morality then at the same time design them to bring death and destruction to other animals. Did God create animals to look after their young and not savagely kill them but simultaneously create them to kill other species in order to survive?.

 

I'm just a dumb farmer, maybe I don't get it but to me it doesn't make sense. Too many grey areas to make statements along the lines of "God is morality and it cannot exist outside of Him"

[StillLooking]

I contend that a sense of basic objective morality evolved in our species for the benefit of working together within a social structure.  I would argue that such things as empathy, compassion, sadness, and all other universally human traits evolved as guides to help us understand and abide by the unwritten rules of our shared morality.  Some of these traits seem to be observable within the animal kingdom, especially among higher primates, suggesting that they are capable of a certain level of morality themselves.  Objective morality was an evolutionary necessity if our species was to survive.

 

In so far as the morality of the christian god, I don't think the idea of hating your own family in order to serve him would be a beneficial value for me to teach my son.  Especially given that hate is equated with murder in the eyes of the lord.

This is what I think too. I believe the main reason for golden rule existence is for the benefit of survival of human race.

[HolyShit]

My favorite response to this is the Euthyphro Dilemma http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

 

"The dilemma results in what is essentially a dichotomy of options in what the causal relationship between morality and a god is:

1. Acts are good because they are commanded by god.
2. God commands acts because they are good.

In the first case, we are left with a case of divine moral relativism, also known as divine command theory. If something is good purely because a god has said so, then the same act can be good or bad depending on the stance of a god at that particular time. Another problem is that there is no way to determine the will of a god - prophets may lie and miracles can be convincingly faked.

In the second case, there must be some source of morality that is separate from the god, one that the god might be accessing in some way to determine whether something is moral or not. However, if this is the case, then a god is actually not necessary for morality, and even moral absolutism is possible without a god."

You could also ask them "What objective moral standard did you use to determine God was the good one and Satan was the evil one?"
When they reply with "god" or "the Bible" just kindly point out they're making a circular argument. I learned that one from Matt Dillahunty.

[Astreja]

I think in order for morality to be genuinely objective, it would somehow have to exist universally in sentient species and would not need to be taught to them.  The only thing that even remotely resembles that sort of universality is the will to live, and that's stretching the definition of "morality" a bit thin.

 

As has already been pointed out, if a god is the source of morality, it's subjective rather than objective.

[Ravenstar]

Correction: The golden rule predates Jesus by about 2000 years, by the Egyptians. So for perspective it's like what someone said at the beginning of our millennia (year 1 of the common era) being attributed to someone from today. 

 

Ancient Egypt[edit]

An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."^{[16][discuss]} An example from a Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."^[17]

[Neverlandrut]

Without claiming to know the science behind morality, my understanding is that morality comes from our basic sense of empathy. It has been proven that when we see someone suffer an injury, the regions of the brain that are active during such an injury become active in the observer. In a sense, we feel their pain! And we don't like pain. We do what we can to avoid pain, whether direct or indirect. If we can keep someone else from suffering, we generally do. It seams to me that that could be the origin of the golden rule.

[DoubtingNate]

Just because our morality is not 'objective' doesn't mean it's not real.  As a society we have reached a consensus that, among other things, you shouldn't torture babies for fun.  It's true because we agree to it.  Can't that be enough??

[MitoXon]

No such thing as objective morality. The "objective morality" that christian teaches are just subjective morality. God kills so many people and that is wrong. And why he continue to do it? because he is evil.