• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Answer to the objective morality argument.

bluskool

Critical Thinker
bluskool
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
362
The objective morality argument for God really gets to me sometimes. It's not that it is a good argument and it is fairly easily answered, but the answers always seem dissatisfying to me.
I am sure everyone knows the argument, but I will state it briefly.
(1) Objective morality can only exist if God exists.
(2) Objective morals do exist.
(3) therefore God exists.

Premise (1) is easily defeated with the Euthyphro Dilemma, but this defeater does not entail that objective morals exist. It only entails that if they do, they can't be grounded in God.
The easiest defeater is to deny (2), but this is where I get tripped up. If moral values are subjective, then I have to admit that I can't really condemn another persons actions. But this seems wrong. From a purely emotional standpoint, I, of course, want to be able to say that torturing an innocent child is wrong, not just that I think it is wrong, but that it really is wrong. If morals are subjective and someone could say that it is morally right to torture an innocent child, it just seems like the words "right" and "wrong" have no meaning in a moral context.

Does anyone else feel this way?
Does anyone have a better response to the argument or a different understanding of the consequences of the responses I already gave?
Am I obsessing over something that really doesn't matter and should just get over it (since the moral structure of our societies will remain the same regardless of the objective/subjective question)?
Something else?
:boggled:
 
bluskool said:
The easiest defeater is to deny (2), but this is where I get tripped up. If moral values are subjective, then I have to admit that I can't really condemn another persons actions. But this seems wrong. From a purely emotional standpoint, I, of course, want to be able to say that torturing an innocent child is wrong, not just that I think it is wrong, but that it really is wrong. If morals are subjective and someone could say that it is morally right to torture an innocent child, it just seems like the words "right" and "wrong" have no meaning in a moral context.
Click to expand...

I invite you to read up on moral anit-realism.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/


If your only reason for believing in objective morality is that it feels good to do so, how is that different from the theist who thinks it "feels" wrong to imagine there is no god.

There is no reason morality deserves special pleading.
 
bluskool said:
The objective morality argument for God really gets to me sometimes. It's not that it is a good argument and it is fairly easily answered, but the answers always seem dissatisfying to me.
I am sure everyone knows the argument, but I will state it briefly.
(1) Objective morality can only exist if God exists.
(2) Objective morals do exist.
(3) therefore God exists.

Premise (1) is easily defeated with the Euthyphro Dilemma, but this defeater does not entail that objective morals exist. It only entails that if they do, they can't be grounded in God.
The easiest defeater is to deny (2), but this is where I get tripped up. If moral values are subjective, then I have to admit that I can't really condemn another persons actions. But this seems wrong. From a purely emotional standpoint, I, of course, want to be able to say that torturing an innocent child is wrong, not just that I think it is wrong, but that it really is wrong. If morals are subjective and someone could say that it is morally right to torture an innocent child, it just seems like the words "right" and "wrong" have no meaning in a moral context.

Does anyone else feel this way?
Does anyone have a better response to the argument or a different understanding of the consequences of the responses I already gave?
Am I obsessing over something that really doesn't matter and should just get over it (since the moral structure of our societies will remain the same regardless of the objective/subjective question)?
Something else?
:boggled:
Click to expand...

I think that if there are no objective morals, then any subjective moral paradigm is as good as any better, when viewed from an impersonal stance. Because we don't have an impersonal position, our own moral paradigm must necessarily seem more important.

Under the circumstances, the only meaningful use of moral language is to describe our own moral feelings, so I would say that there's no problem in using it for that purpose.

Of course, the problem with this is that not everyone regards it in this way, meaning that there is a potential disparity of meaning in conversation. I suppose you'd just have to bear this in mind, and clarify as needed.
 
bluskool said:
If moral values are subjective, then I have to admit that I can't really condemn another persons actions. But this seems wrong. From a purely emotional standpoint, I, of course, want to be able to say that torturing an innocent child is wrong, not just that I think it is wrong, but that it really is wrong. If morals are subjective and someone could say that it is morally right to torture an innocent child, it just seems like the words "right" and "wrong" have no meaning in a moral context.
Click to expand...

The first sentence says it all really. Yes, the truth hurts sometimes.

However, just because you can't hold objective truth doesn't mean you can't condemn actions of others. No, you don't get to argue based on having a superior moral viewpoint (and frankly, it pisses people off when you do anyway) but you can still argue. For example, you could point out that allowing the torture of people isn't a good idea if you want a stable society, so it is in everybody's best interest to condemn it.

Or if you find that argument too cold, here's the one I prefer. The absence of absolute morality in no way implies absence of empathy. Nowhere does it say that rationality forces you to only care about yourself. You can still say that, as a human being, you care about other human beings and don't want to see them hurt. Perfectly valid.

So yes, it's true that the other guy isn't 'wrong' to torture a child, but that doesn't mean you have to like it and it doesn't mean you have to tolerate it either.

Hope you found that helpful. :)
 
Last edited:
Cavemonster said:
I invite you to read up on moral anit-realism.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/
Click to expand...

Will do.


Cavemonster said:
If your only reason for believing in objective morality is that it feels good to do so, how is that different from the theist who thinks it "feels" wrong to imagine there is no god.

There is no reason morality deserves special pleading.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That is what I am trying to avoid.


Sophronius said:
The first sentence says it all really. Yes, the truth hurts sometimes.

However, just because you can't hold objective truth doesn't mean you can't condemn actions of others. No, you don't get to argue based on having a superior moral viewpoint (and frankly, it pisses people off when you do anyway) but you can still argue. For example, you could point out that allowing the torture of people isn't a good idea if you want a stable society, so it is in everybody's best interest to condemn it.

Or if you find that argument too cold, here's the one I prefer. The absence of absolute morality in no way implies absence of empathy. Nowhere does it say that rationality forces you to only care about yourself. You can still say that, as a human being, you care about other human beings and don't want to see them hurt. Perfectly valid.
Click to expand...

You are still condemning their actions based on your "feeling" that empath is good or a stable society is one to strive for. Yes, we certainly can (and I do) make these kind of arguments and perhaps that is the best we have. But if that is the case, so be it. Like you said, sometimes the truth hurts.

Sophronius said:
So yes, it's true that the other guy isn't 'wrong' to torture a child, but that doesn't mean you have to like it and it doesn't mean you have to tolerate it either.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is what I meant when I said I may be obsessing over something that doesn't matter.

Sophronius said:
Hope you found that helpful. :)
Click to expand...

It did. Thanks! :D
 
bluskool said:
The objective morality argument for God really gets to me sometimes. It's not that it is a good argument and it is fairly easily answered, but the answers always seem dissatisfying to me.
I am sure everyone knows the argument, but I will state it briefly.
(1) Objective morality can only exist if God exists.
(2) Objective morals do exist.
(3) therefore God exists.
Click to expand...




bluskool said:
Premise (1) is easily defeated with the Euthyphro Dilemma, but this defeater does not entail that objective morals exist. It only entails that if they do, they can't be grounded in God.
Click to expand...

True.

Also, kellyb provided some links that propose that objective morality can have natural origins.

P1 is very weak, if not easily refuted.



Aside: in the context of the argument framework, the 'only' part is superfluous. P1 can possibly be more clearly stated as:

P1: IF <Objective Morality Exists> THEN <God Exists>

(but I suspect this is not the meat of your post - I think the next premise is what has prompted you to pick some brains at JREF forums...)




bluskool said:
The easiest defeater is to deny (2), but this is where I get tripped up. If moral values are subjective, then I have to admit that I can't really condemn another persons actions. But this seems wrong. From a purely emotional standpoint, I, of course, want to be able to say that torturing an innocent child is wrong, not just that I think it is wrong, but that it really is wrong. If morals are subjective and someone could say that it is morally right to torture an innocent child, it just seems like the words "right" and "wrong" have no meaning in a moral context.

Does anyone else feel this way?
Does anyone have a better response to the argument or a different understanding of the consequences of the responses I already gave?
Am I obsessing over something that really doesn't matter and should just get over it (since the moral structure of our societies will remain the same regardless of the objective/subjective question)?
Something else?
:boggled:
Click to expand...

Don't panic.

You're 100% correct that if morals aren't objective, that they are by definition subjective.

Here's what's important: subjective is not the same as arbitrary.

Moral frameworks seek to be both internally consistent and also consistent with what sounds mostly right. The exercise is like peeling an onion, and ultimately there are some moral axioms that are simply not objectively supportable but feel true. That's what makes them axioms.

Popular unprovable moral axioms:

  • a moral framework should be internally consistent
  • a moral framework should reduce human suffering
  • a moral framework should increase human happiness

You can't say that torturing children is objectively wrong, but you do appear to be aligned with those of us who believe that it's wrong.

You have the right to act on this belief because you're a thinking human being with empathy and a stake in the treatment of yourself and others.

There's no shame in this.
 
Last edited:
bluskool said:
You are still condemning their actions based on your "feeling" that empath is good or a stable society is one to strive for. Yes, we certainly can (and I do) make these kind of arguments and perhaps that is the best we have. But if that is the case, so be it. Like you said, sometimes the truth hurts.
Click to expand...

Feelings are not a particularly effective way to discern objective truth, but they are a measure of the quality of your life.

I want to feel happy, secure, useful, fullfilled, I don't need a reason beyond my desire and the various kinds of pleasure and well-being I feel.

I value empathy because it allows me to have a large variety of deep and powerful emotions and thoughts, and that's what my experience on this earth is made of, that a physical sensation.

I value stability for the same reasons, and a stable society allows me and the people I love to work towards our personal goals. A cooperative society does that even better. It's not a vague "feeling" that these things are "good" but a number of practical and experiental benefits.
 
Kant offers a fairly good argument that moral judgement can be based solely on reason, but also be 'objective' for any meaningful sense of objective - that is, obligatory for any rational agent to hold. If you don't know it, check it out.

Being Kant, it's a bit strong on the a priori reasoning, but John Rawls does a pretty good job rehabilitating the basic idea in a less Kant-like fashion (here).

You may not like either of those arguments particularly, but I don't think you should give up on the notion that morals that don't come from on high are obligatory. You could go all Aristotelean and say that human flourishing is the ideal. If you can provide a reasonable argument for what 'human flourishing' is (and I don't think that's a hopeless project, just a hard one) you could get moral imperatives that way.

Point is, I think there are several possible ways to get moral imperatives without god. I regard the religious line that without god all is moral anarchy as propaganda.
 
To be honest, the concept of objective morality scares me.

In fact, dealing with anything "absolute", where no thought is applied, nothing is considered, no intelligence is used... scares the bejeebus out of me.

People should learn to think.
 
bluskool said:
The easiest defeater is to deny (2), but this is where I get tripped up. If moral values are subjective, then I have to admit that I can't really condemn another persons actions. But this seems wrong.
Click to expand...

As a materialist, I would say that you cannot do other than object, your subjective morality doesn't allow you to.

And that brings up the resolution to the seeming paradox. Whether morality is subjective or objective, our experience of it can only be subjective anyhow. So, pick either flavor, the practical results are the same.

As far as materialism goes, I wouldn't recommend it. It can give you some nice answers, but it's like beer... you have to drink a lot of it to get used to the taste.
 
I've heard the objective morality from Christians before. What is the objective criteria for morality? They usually say "what God says" but, for some reason, everyone has their own subjective opinion of what "god" says.
 
Last edited:
If morals were objective, there should be a scientific way to measure them and establish their grounds.

Fortunately, beyond the fact that we haven't found such thing, we have made one of the more important discoveries of mankind: The true essence of the criteria under which nature "behaves": The survival of the gene. And what we have found is that, as long as the gene's survival is guaranteed, anything goes. This is all we have found about nature.

If we're not looking for answers in nature as it is about the true nature of morality, then we're just looking for confirmation bias of our own pet beliefs. And that's simply put: dishonest and childish.

If we're looking for guidelines on how should we behave morally, we do not need to confirm that morals are objective, no more than we need to confirm that the rules of chess aren't arbitrary and man-made for us to learn how to play the game correctly.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
If morals were objective, there should be a scientific way to measure them and establish their grounds.....
Click to expand...
I hadn't intended to leave the other thread where we left off, but the discussion strayed to the Ayn Rand threads. But now it surfaces here so I can take up where we left off after all.

Science can measure morals objectively and establish their grounds, but not in the absolute way you envision. We can study the established brain function of morality. We can compare different moral 'types'. We can examine how brain damage affects morals and how early childhood experiences affect morals and we can make predictions that are testable.
 
First of all, you would have to prove that "morals" exist.

All we have as evidence are actions and subjective responses to those actions.

I hit Billy in the face. Billy gets upset. Hitting Billy is therefore "wrong."

I hit Billy in the face. Billy likes it. Hitting Billy is therefore "right."

Occam's razor ..... morals / ethics / are concepts that are not necessary for reality to exist, or be explained.

IMHO, morality and ethics are subjective because they are fiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom