Why Do Atheists Deny Objective Morality?

_{Barry Arrington

January 11, 2018

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a recent exchange in this post William J. Murray said to frequent commenter Bob O’H:

all you (and others) are doing is avoiding the point via wordplay. We all act and expect others to act as if these things are objective and universally binding, the ability to imagine alternate systems notwithstanding.

That is precisely correct, as illustrated by my exchange with goodusername in the same post. First, at comment 12 GUN professed to not even know what the word “right” means:

GUN: “What would it even mean to give a “right” answer to a morality question?”

I decided to test this:

Barry @ 13:

Suppose the following exchange:

GUN: Hey, Barry is is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure?

Barry: Yes, GUN, it is.

Did I supply a “right” answer to a moral question?

GUN replied at 15: “Such a thing certainly shocks my sense of empathy, and so I would fight to stop such a thing, as would most others. So the answer is right in that sense.”

First GUN insisted he does not even know what “morally right” means. But when confronted with an undeniable self-evident moral truth he had to walk it back and admit he did in fact know what the right answer is. But, as WJM points out, he tried to obscure the obvious point with wordplay. So I called BS on him.

GUN’s antics are just the latest of hundreds I have seen over the years. It is amazing. They know that no sane person can live his life as if what they say were true. Yet they absolutely insist on saying it anyway. Why do they do that? Simple. Because they want to ignore the dictates of morality when it suits them. Atheist Aldous Huxley was very candid about this:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves . . . For myself . . . the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust.

Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Ideals and Into the Methods Employed for Their Realization (1937), 272-73

Huxley wanted to reserve the option of sleeping with his neighbor’s wife. So, no objective morality.

Comments

HeKS
Do you disagree that some prominent atheists have cited the possibility of the two prior points as a basis for objective morality in the absence of God?
I understand. But their denial of free will invalidates everything else that they say. There is no objective morality without free will. Besides, and as you have indicated, it is logically impossible to derive morality from scientific "facts" or even scientific theories. As I stated earlier, you cannot get an ought to from that kind of "is," but you can most definitely get an ought to from the metaphysical "is."StephenB_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

StephenB @35 I can’t tell if you think you’re disagreeing with me ????
I thought *you were disagreeing with me* and my abbreviated formulation of objective morality. So I was just stretching out on what I said earlier, (*I forgot the formula for indicating a smiley face, so just note that I am smiling)*.
Do you disagree that it is possible, based on objective facts, for humans to determine SOME things that, on average, contribute to human health and happiness and reduce human suffering?
No. I agree with you. However, the point of defining objective morality with the present emphasis was to mark the difference between subjective morality and objective morality, not the difference between objective morality and psuedo-objective morality as described by atheists.
Do you disagree that in so doing these atheists are making an error and failing to see that these possibilities do absolutely nothing to bridge the gap between IS and OUGHT?
I am especially glad that you asked this question. I think that the so-called Is-ought dichotomy is misunderstood and overblown. When philosophers claimed that you cannot get to the ought from the is, they meant that you cannot take down-on-the-ground facts and derive morality from that information alone. I agree with that point, but its importance is greatly overestimated. Metaphysically, there is NO gap between the IS and the OUGHT. How things are (the is, our nature, our purpose, God's existence etc.) does, indeed, determine how we ought to act. In fact, we can and we must derive the ought to from the is in that sense, and it is the only sense that matters. The whole idea of the so-called IS-OUGHT "controversy," was to make us forget that metaphysical truth determines moral truth. In my judgment, David Hume was not a great thinker. He was a sophist of the first order.StephenB_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

I think HeKs is making some good points. There are atheists who honestly try to find a naturalistic (objective) ground for morality. For example, Sam Harris, one of the so-called “new atheists”, has written a book entitled, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. In a 2010 interview with Daily Show’s Jon Stewart, Harris laid out some of his reasons for writing his book. “I think the biggest challenge we’re facing is finding some way to create a global civilization based on shared values. We have to converge on the same kind of economic and political and social goals and so forth. We have to begin giving similar answers to the most important questions in human life; and the only way forward to do that I see is to begin to talk about morality and human values very much in the context of our growing scientific understanding of ourselves in the world….” Well those are commendable goals. They all sound very reasonable and they all pull at our heart strings. But how is Harris going to accomplish those goals? “Morality and value clearly relates to human and animal well-being,” Harris explains, “and our well-being emerges out of the laws of nature; it depends on the way the universe is…. all of these domains fall within the purview of science.” However, right out of the gate Harris is in trouble. He begins making the same mistakes others have made by trying to base a system of morality on nature. He does not do the proper philosophical due diligence to even get his argument off the ground. For example, Harris does not explain how our morals and ethics (which are purposeful) can be grounded by a purposeless natural process. By definition naturalistic Darwinian evolution is purposeless. But a universal and objective moral or ethical sense cannot be explained without purpose. So, how then does a purposeless process give rise to purpose? When Harris says that “our well-being emerges out of the laws of nature; it depends on the way the universe is…” he is making the claim that the universe has a goal and a purpose, namely, human well-being. That simply doesn’t fit with the kind of atheistic naturalism he professes to believe in. Harris also stumbles, maybe out of ignorance, on the problem first identified by David Hume, of ‘how one derives an ought from an is?’ Darwinian evolution is about survival of the fittest-- the strong dominating the weak. So, on the one hand, you have a will-to-power ethic where the powerful make up all the rules; or on the other, anarchic kind or moral relativism. If survival of the fittest is the only real goal of natural evolution then obviously the former, will-to-power ethic, is the better choice. So if the powerful make up the rules so that they can freely exploit the weak who is to say that is wrong? Thirdly as a committed materialist Harris is also a committed determinist. But he is not just your typical garden variety determinist he is an absolute determinist who rejects not only freewill but any kind of compatibilism. But with such a view Harris has not just dug himself into a hole, but he has fallen into a bottomless pit from which there is no escape. “Ought” implies can. But if all my thoughts, desires, beliefs and actions can be reduced neurophysiology that allows no room for any kind of intentionality or free choice, how can I be held morally responsible for any of my actions or behavior? I don’t see that Harris has any way out. Finally, Harris concedes that his proposal is still a work in progress. In other words, someday science may be able to define human morality. Internet blogger Richard Deem observes, “Contrary to the book's subtitle, Harris doesn't even attempt to show how science could be used to determine moral values. Instead, he is constantly referring to possible future scientific research that might aid in such a determination.” In other words, someday science might able to ground moral values. For now, I guess, you will just need to accept it by faith.john_a_designer_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

HeKS: For example, we can be pretty sure that stabbing someone in the chest or poisoning them is not conducive to their flourishing, right?
Right, not to "their flourishing". However it could be conductive to the flourishing of the atheist. Moreover, why should an atheist care about "their flourishing"?
HeKS: ... but there can be an objective factual basis for determining some things that, on average, reduce human suffering and increase human health and happiness.
Why should an atheist care about anything but his own flourishing?Origenes_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

StephenB @35 I can't tell if you think you're disagreeing with me :) I don't think I disagree with anything you said there. Indeed, you seem to be elaborating on the very thing I said at the end of my comment #29:
I would nonetheless point out that that which contributes to human flourishing and that which moves humans toward their proper telos is not necessarily the same thing, so gaining knowledge of those things that objectively contribute to human flourishing does not, in all cases, necessarily point to the proper moral standard for human behavior. Again, the idea that these two things necessarily correspond is one of the failings of people like Sam Harris. It results in a false redefinition of “Good” as meaning something like, “that which contributes to the greatest human flourishing”.
If you disagree with me on some point I've made, perhaps you can specify exactly what you disagree with. For example: Do you disagree that it is possible, based on objective facts, for humans to determine SOME things that, on average, contribute to human health and happiness and reduce human suffering? Do you disagree that it is possible for humans to create an ethical system geared towards applying this limited knowledge in an effort to increase human health and happiness and reduce human suffering? Do you disagree that some prominent atheists have cited the possibility of the two prior points as a basis for objective morality in the absence of God? Do you disagree that in so doing these atheists are making an error and failing to see that these possibilities do absolutely nothing to bridge the gap between IS and OUGHT? Take careHeKS_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Tribune7, Truth Will Set You Free, Origenes, I don't know if I'm not being clear or if you guys are just misreading me :) Of course it's true that what constitutes "human flourishing" in some grand and absolute sense is open to debate and subjective. That's why I didn't say that humans can objectively determine ALL things that are conducive to human flourishing vs those that aren't. But clearly we can figure out SOME things objectively, right? For example, we can be pretty sure that stabbing someone in the chest or poisoning them is not conducive to their flourishing, right? On the other hand, giving the proper antibiotics to someone suffering from a bacterial infection is conducive to their flourishing, right? Giving a starving person food is more conducive to their flourishing than continuing to allow them to starve, right? I mean, surely you're not trying to argue that we simply can't know anything about what promotes human health and happiness and reduces human suffering, right? We can't necessarily foresee the long-term impact on human flourishing that any particular action might have (the old idea that maybe the person you saved from starving to death was the next Hitler), but there can be an objective factual basis for determining some things that, on average, reduce human suffering and increase human health and happiness. However, the whole reason I'm drawing attention to this is to point out the error atheists often make when talking about objective morality, which is that they confuse the existence of an objective, fact-based method for determining some things that, on average, contribute to human flourishing with an objective basis for morality and for moral values and duties. They argue along the lines of, "We don't need God for objective morality because we can use science to objectively determine what contributes to human flourishing." However, no matter how true a claim it might be that science can be used to objectively determine things that contribute to human flourishing (whether completely true or only partially true), the overall claim is completely false, because the mere ability to objectively determine things that contribute to human flourishing does absolutely nothing to establish an objective basis for any moral value to human flourishing or any moral duty to behave in a way that contributes to it. For that, you need God. So all I'm doing here is addressing an argument I've often heard for the possibility of objective morality in the absence of God that has been used by prominent atheists. The argument is wrong. It is based on confusion and it redefines moral terms into utilitarian ones.HeKS_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

HeKS
What I was saying was that one who denies the existence of God – and therefore that God designed human nature with any particular telos in view – can still develop and adhere to an ethical system based on an objective measure of what contributes to human flourishing.
Would you not agree that human flourishing comes in different forms and also in different degrees? I submit that the issue is not -- do you flourish? – so much as it is -- how do you flourish? The atheist who develops the natural virtue of industry by working hard will not necessarily grow in love or make the kinds of sacrifices that will benefit others
There is an objective aspect to this, in that some things really do detract from human flourishing and some things really do contribute to it. The problem, however, is that they CONFUSE this with an objective morality that creates moral values and duties.
One can develop the natural virtue of patience, which is objectively good, for the purpose of seeking revenge, which is objectively bad. What a person does matters, but why he does it matters more. So if an atheist thinks he is doing some objectively moral good by practicing a natural virtue, he is right in that limited context, but if he refuses to pay tribute to his Creator, then his understanding of morality and the nature of his moral duties are fatally incomplete, so much so, that he is more wrong than right and is moving away from his final end.
There are certain things that objectively contribute to human flourishing, and B) We have no duty whatsoever to do that which contributes to human flourishing rather than that which detracts from it. Hence my point that I’m talking about two different kinds or levels of objectivity. That atheists can have access to the one does not advance them one iota towards having access to the other, and prominent atheists confuse this all the time.
One can flourish in a spiritual sense and not flourish economically, and vice versa. Indeed, I would take it one step further. Objectively, the moral code binds us to do what is good even if we do NOT flourish economically, or socially, or in many other ways. That is the stuff that makes saints and it goes by the name, "heroic virtue." Of course, the ideal is to grow in ALL the virtues, but circumstances dictate which ones are needed most. A principled martyr who wastes away in a prison camp for the love of God is flourishing spiritually like no one else—as long as he doesn’t hate his enemies. In that case, he is racing toward his final objective. Physically and socially, however – well, I don’t need to finish the sentence, do I?StephenB_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

tribune 7 @ 31: Good points. HeKs @ 29: What exactly is the objective measure of human flourishing?Truth Will Set You Free_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

HeKS @29
HeKS: There are certain things that objectively contribute to human flourishing ...
Do you think that everyone can agree on what "human flourishing" is? It seems to me that if we do not — if everyone has her/his own subjective opinion on what it means — then we have no objectivity.Origenes_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

According to a/mat faith and philosophy, morality is subjective to each person (and to each group of like-minded people). I have no trouble with that type of thinking, but I do find it odd when a/mats act as if their particular standard of morality is (or should be) true for everyone else... as if their opinion is fundamentally superior to other opinions. Quite silly, actually.Truth Will Set You Free_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

was that one who denies the existence of God – and therefore that God designed human nature with any particular telos in view – can still develop and adhere to an ethical system based on an objective measure of what contributes to human flourishing. Human flourishing is a subjective concept. Does it mean infanticide for those born with birth defects a la the Romans? Does it mean racial purity as per the Nazis (and Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League?) Dose it mean Hindu bride burning? Does it mean population control? A caste/class system as per Indian and England and Huxley's Brave New World? Central economic planning? Central planning with the goal of populating distant solar systems? What does "human" flourishing objectively mean?tribune7_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

From the Aldous Huxley quote cited in the OP:
We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust.
Notice how Huxley smuggles in the idea of universal human rights. He has the right of “sexual freedom” and we are now obligated to respect that as a right. But how am I or anyone else obligated to respect his personal subjective view opinions about sexual morality? If it’s a subjective moral view point there is no interpersonal obligation. Notice how he also tries to coopt a universal idea like justice: ”we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust.” But justice is something which needs to apply to society as a whole. How can a subjectivist say anything about justice? How can his moral thinking apply (be morally binding) to anyone other than himself?john_a_designer_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Barry @28

HeKS: And so we’re talking about two levels of objectivity here. One that is based on what seem to be objective facts we can discover about how to reach a particular goal that we desire, and another that imprints directly on reality how the world ought to be and how humans ought to behave.
Incorrect. There is only one objective moral standard. When we reason to the Good, we are reasoning not to a goal that we desire. We are reasoning to the human telos, and that telos, as you say, has been imprinted on reality by God. In other words, humans ought to behave in a way that moves them toward the end for which they were created.
Barry, I think you're missing my point. What I was saying was that one who denies the existence of God - and therefore that God designed human nature with any particular telos in view - can still develop and adhere to an ethical system based on an objective measure of what contributes to human flourishing. There is an objective aspect to this, in that some things really do detract from human flourishing and some things really do contribute to it. The problem, however, is that they CONFUSE this with an objective morality that creates moral values and duties. People like Sam Harris and Michael Shermer do this all the time. They confuse the fact that there is an objective basis for determining certain things that help human flourishing and certain things that hurt it with a foundation for objective morality that places a duty on humans whereby they ought to do that which contributes to human flourishing rather than that which detracts from it. In reality, these are two completely different things. There is no logical inconsistency between saying that A) There are certain things that objectively contribute to human flourishing, and B) We have no duty whatsoever to do that which contributes to human flourishing rather than that which detracts from it. Hence my point that I'm talking about two different kinds or levels of objectivity. That atheists can have access to the one does not advance them one iota towards having access to the other, and prominent atheists confuse this all the time. I might also point out that while I agree with this statement from you:
When we reason to the Good ... [w]e are reasoning to the human telos, and that telos, as you say, has been imprinted on reality by God. In other words, humans ought to behave in a way that moves them toward the end for which they were created.
I would nonetheless point out that that which contributes to human flourishing and that which moves humans toward their proper telos is not necessarily the same thing, so gaining knowledge of those things that objectively contribute to human flourishing does not, in all cases, necessarily point to the proper moral standard for human behavior. Again, the idea that these two things necessarily correspond is one of the failings of people like Sam Harris. It results in a false redefinition of "Good" as meaning something like, "that which contributes to the greatest human flourishing".HeKS_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

HeKS @ 16
Ethical judgments may or may not be consistent with the objective moral standard.
Correct.
Actions that humans may deem ethical would only be good if they are actually consistent with the moral standard.
Correct.
And so we’re talking about two levels of objectivity here. One that is based on what seem to be objective facts we can discover about how to reach a particular goal that we desire, and another that imprints directly on reality how the world ought to be and how humans ought to behave.
Incorrect. There is only one objective moral standard. When we reason to the Good, we are reasoning not to a goal that we desire. We are reasoning to the human telos, and that telos, as you say, has been imprinted on reality by God. In other words, humans ought to behave in a way that moves them toward the end for which they were created.Barry Arrington_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

GUN what do those who say that morality is objective mean by the term? That there is purpose for our existence and that there are universal rules that all must follow -- and to which all will be accountable -- to achieve this purpose. Frankly, I don't see how an atheist can believe in objective morality. Maybe a skeptic who isn't quite sure as to what is going on but knows in his heart that this is bad and this is good, but a hard-core, dogmatic atheist who denies God on principle and encourages others to do the same, can't see it.tribune7_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

CR, you have been present all along when the difference between belief, perception or opinion and knowledge was discussed: warrant. Much of the rest is simply re-statement of the already sufficiently answered. KFkairosfocus_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

To reformulate my question: What is the difference between "I believe the correct response to this moral problem is X" and "Morality is objective and I believe I believe the objectively correct response to this moral problem is X" Why should any be more compelled to accept the former than the latter? If you lack infallible access to the supposed objective moral foundation, then how can it help you when facing a concrete moral problem? If moral isn't about helping actual people in actual problem situations then what does it mean to have a moral problem? Why should anyone care abut your morality? It's as if someone trying to solve the problem of how to resolve moral problems by claiming they know they are true objectively. But that doesn't actual solve the problem. It merely obscures what's going on, which seems to me to be, well, immoral because it attempts to destroy a way of correcting errors.critical rationalist_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

CR, kindly observe the just above. KFkairosfocus_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

I don’t know where teachings like internal tournament and purgatory fit, but they don’t fit with any morality I know about and definitively not with God’s….
That they do not fit with the morality you know about isn't in question. What I'm questioning is, how do you know the morality you "know about" is the right one, in contrast to your own views on what a perfectly good being would expect from us? How do you know they are definitely God's morality, as opposed to your view about what God's morality would be? It's unclear how you can tell the difference. Reason always has its say first.critical rationalist_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

CR (et al): We have already repeatedly discussed that our faculties and perceptions need not be infallible to reason correctly and even to warrant certain limited plumb-line truths as self-evident. All we need is sufficient reliability and understanding guided by duty to truth, sound logic, fairness etc. For concrete and decisive instance, it is self-evident and beyond responsible, rational doubt that: 2 + 3 = 5, as, per direct patent demonstration: || + ||| --> ||||| The basic capability to establish SET's is therefore demonstrated by direct, instructive example. QED. Period. Finis. The long running rhetorical song and dance of irresponsible, reckless selective hyperskepticism to pretend otherwise collapses. The real issue is, what are some relevant SET's, and particularly, are there cases of moral SET's. (Further song and dance exposing anti-Christian bigotry are just so much noise-making that is little more than Internet Atheist soapbox talking points, known to go beyond the reasonable remit of UD but intended to try to taint through guilt by invidious association.) For weeks now, it has been clearly pointed out -- but studiously ignored or dismissed on various fallacies of distraction -- that a first moral SET is that our intellectual life is inescapably under the moral government of duties to truth, sound logic, fairness etc. Once a responsible person of sufficient understanding based on experience and reflection sees that claim s/he will acknowledge it as patently true. Also, as necessarily true on pain of reducing reason to cynical manipulation and deceit, through the soft nihilism of might and/or manipulation make 'right' 'truth' 'knowledge' 'rights' 'justice' etc. Where, such nihilism is patently absurd, indeed it is blatant civilisation-suicidal lunacy. Further to such, we have yet again seen a sadly real-world, yardstick, instructive case in point: it is self-evidently evil to kidnap, bind, gag, sexually assault and murder a young child for sick pleasure. Corollary: if we were to have come across this outrage in progress we would have been duty-bound to come to the rescue or at least bawl out for help. The consistent evasiveness, ill-disguised irritability and weasel-words in response to this case demonstrate to the discerning eye that objectors know better than their rhetoric to try to blunt the force of this case. This case and similar ones warrant us in recognising several yardstick principles and axiomatic postulates including several forms of the Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule of neighbour-love. The inherent dignity and quasi-infinite worth of the morally governed individual, leading to recognised inherent and unalienable rights such as life and liberty to fulfill a reasonable vision of one's calling in life. The need for nurturing, protective community (starting with sound family) to support human thriving from conception to senescence. And more. The consistent rhetorical attacks to the contrary therefore reveal themselves as soft nihilism, disrespect for neighbour and even verging on misanthropy. Perhaps, it is time to reconsider and reform thought and ways. KF PS: Where I would take the above line of reasoning, as was recently headlined here at UD:
We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles; for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people — that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to (a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law. For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.) 2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. (That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.) 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. If a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT — so that IS and OUGHT are inextricably fused at that level, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare; usurping the sword of justice to impose a ruthless policy agenda in fundamental breach of that civil peace which must ever pivot on manifest justice. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. (In Aristotle’s terms as cited by Hooker: “because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like .”) Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly. (NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting — again — nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation — or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.) 12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.
kairosfocus_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

HeKS
We can have ethics without God, but we can’t have morality without God. Not even a little.
I agree. No morality is possible without God. In keeping with that point, there can be no objective good for humans to pursue unless God put it there and gave man the mental and volitional tools to attain it. The pursuit of the good, after all, is not just a single moral act; it is a journey with an end in mind (man,s ultimate end, which is God). A good act, therefore, is defined as one that propels us in the right direction (toward our end) and a bad act is defined as one that sends us retreating in the wrong direction (away from our end). If morality doesn't mean that, then it doesn't mean anything.StephenB_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

HeKS,
I’m assuming he meant “not” rather than “now”
Oops, yes, thanks!goodusername_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

GUN
That’s an interesting description of morality because I think it’s one that virtually all (certainly most!) materialists/atheists would agree with (for the most part). Even most atheist parents teach their children morality because 1) they don’t want their children harming others and 2) it will generally lead to a happier more fulfilling life. In other words, it is good for them.
Well, yes, I think you have a point when you say that a materialist/atheist could go along with part of it insofar as happiness is something that all men seek. However, I don't think the materialist would agree with the major ingredients in the formula, i.e, that there is an objective good that defines human happiness or that the moral code that sets the guidelines is not a product of human effort.StephenB_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

HeKS @12, Barry summarized my points very well @14. I cannot improve on it.StephenB_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT}

GUN
But to put the two statements in a wider context (and why there should be an even less chance of confusion), in the post where the questions came from (the link is in #3) I begin by envisioning a machine that answers objective questions. It gives answer to math questions, and questions as to which rock is larger, heavier, etc.
OK. I will reread your comments with that perspective and background information in mind.StephenB_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

Barry @14 Hi Barry, I understand how that reasoning works in terms of identifying what is objectively good for a human, and what it means to identify something as a good example or instance of something, which is something that effectively fulfills its purpose or reaches its goal. But it seems to me that what was initially being asked was what is meant when we refer to "objective morality". The first statement from GUN was:
Although, I’m no[t] sure what “objective” even means when referring to morality
(I'm assuming he meant "not" rather than "now") As for Feser, I agree with some of his stuff and not with others. An understanding of human nature can make it possible for us to make ethical judgments based on the agreed upon and desirable goal of human flourishing, and our nature therefore gives us a kind of natural insight into a moral standard, playing a role in moral epistemology. However, ethics cannot tell us that to act unethically is also to act immorally. We can have ethics without God, but we can't have morality without God. Not even a little. So I guess it comes down to what is actually being asked here. P.S. Just to be clear, I'm using "ethics" here to refer to a human-developed system of judgments based on discoverable facts about what contributes to human flourishing. When I talk about "morality" I'm talking about a deeper aspect of reality. A kind of super-ethic that forms part of the fabric of existence. Ethical judgments may or may not be consistent with the objective moral standard. Actions that humans may deem ethical would only be good if they are actually consistent with the moral standard. And so we're talking about two levels of objectivity here. One that is based on what seem to be objective facts we can discover about how to reach a particular goal that we desire, and another that imprints directly on reality how the world ought to be and how humans ought to behave.HeKS_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

jdk
.As we have been discussing, conclusions follow from premises. Stephen assumes, because it is “obvious” to him, that an objective human nature exists that has the qualities (more assumptions) from which he can conclude objective morality exists.
You misunderstand. I am not arguing for the existence of objective morality, though I could. I am answering the question about what it means. I presented no arguments in defense of a real human nature, though I could. I presented no arguments that such a thing as "the good," exists, though I could. I simply explained what it means when one refers to objective morality--from an A/T perspective, as Barry perceptively pointed out.StephenB_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

HeKS @ 12 Yes, you misunderstand SB. Stephen would be the first to admit that from an ontological perspective, morality is objective. But in the comment to which you allude SB is engaging not in ontology but in a standard Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law epistemological analysis. In that analysis, how do we know what is good? A being is good when it conforms to its end -- its telos. A knife is for cutting. A good knife is one that cuts well. The analysis scales to humans. A good human is one that conforms to the telos -- the human nature -- created by God. Feser has a good discussion of it here.Barry Arrington_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT}

Answer: "Because, 'objective' morality doesn't change with time, culture, or religious interpretation of dodgey texts." It is inculcated, and does not change, very bad for human advancement; when slavery was ok the Jews/Christians/Muslims, cheered! Subjective morality is malleable, evolves with human culture, and is not bonded to strict scriptural interpretation. Thus, making it perfectly in sinc with the idea of evolution! Why Barry? The same tired old non-questions?rvb8_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

StephenB #6
When we discuss objective morality we are simply referring to the morality proper to human nature, which is obviously an objective reality in itself. Among other things, the nature of a human being is to use his faculties of intellect and will to make decisions that will help him obtain those things that are objectively good for him. Thus, morality must be an objective set of guidelines to help humans achieve an objective end (what is good for them).
StephenB, I don't know if I'm just totally misunderstanding you, but if not, what you're describing is some kind of objective utility, not objective morality. When we talk about objective morality, we're talking about a moral standard that exists independent of human opinion or human nature. It is the claim that there are some things that are really morally wrong, and they would still be wrong even if every human on earth (or every intelligent being in the universe) were somehow fooled or brainwashed into thinking they were right. That following this objective moral standard happens to be conducive to long-term human flourishing is certainly more than mere coincidence, but it is not the conduciveness to human flourishing that serves as the objective ground and basis for the moral standard. Human flourishing cannot merely designate itself as a moral good, as though it were picking itself up by its bootstraps. Without some higher order context, there is no reason to designate human flourishing as a moral good, or a moral anything. It would just be one of many logically possible outcomes, none of which would have any objective moral status at all. What serves as the foundation for the objective moral standard is the essential nature of the being that lies at the root of reality and that caused and permeates all existence.HeKS_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 10 11 12 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply