NationStates Jolt Archive

So, influenced by the thread asking whether a press conference by an assumed indisputable Jesus would make me a Christian, I came to realize that I believe that objective morality is independent of a creator-figure or other similar deity. I'm not convinced that "God", or whoever else, is right by default, but that They are subject to objective morality just as we humans are.

Your thoughts on the issue?

objective morality exists only in the general, not the specific.

so everyone believes that its wrong to steal and murder but everyone has a different definition of what constitutes theft and murder.

Objective morality does not exist. There is no reason to believe that some sort of form of Good exists in the universe. To believe such a thing would be difficult without believing in some sort of supernatural presence. I mean the very idea of the form of Good is inherently supernatural anyway, also God is good and perfection according to most definitions of God, the form of Good is the most perfect thing in existence, ergo God is the form of Good. If not however, it would probably still require belief in some sort of creator being, since any supernatural form of Good could not exist naturally.

Many people bring up the argument that morality is universal since there is evidence of a shared moral intuition in our biology, but that just means that our morality is relative to human nature, and not a universal morality.

Is this similar to if we have intuitive morality(you're born with it, sort of like instinct), or if there is no such thing (which leads to science and empirical ideas of morality, which can be in the case of logical positivism not very convincing).
Personally i'd like to think that morality is objective, but in reality it's subjective.
So this means that big moral decisions to make are subjective, however this can lead to a nasty problem, if you accept morality is subjective then there's no moral reason to say Stalins purges were evil, or Hitlers gassing of the Jews were evil or even killing other people is evil, because if morality depends on the situation, then Hitler or the others, could have been acting morally from what they think is right.
This by the way is a fairly big debate in philosophy, my teacher prefers objective morality, but i can see how it could be subjective.

I believe there is objective morality... But even if one doesn't, in a civilized culture we treat morality, at least some subset of moral rules, as if it WERE objective.

The Hitler example highlights it. We'd all agree that Hitler's actions were evil. We agree with that because we measure him by some more or less agreed upon standard that says killing people by the millions is not morally justifiable. Even those who believe morality is subjective must either acknowledge that we, as a civilization, proceed as thought it were objective, or they must be prepared to acknowledge the possibility that Hitler's actions could be considered moral by someone whose standards can't be quantitatively evaluated to be better or worse than those of Mother Theresa.

Objective morality does not exist. There is no reason to believe that some sort of form of Good exists in the universe.

Perhaps, but your conclusion does not follow from your premise. A form of Good is one way to justify objective morality, and a rarely used one these days at that.

If there is an objective morality (and I believe there is), morality will still always be effectively subjective. Human beings are not infallible, and we all determine morality based upon our own experiences and use our own thought processes. And, while we may be absolutely sure of some things internally, we can never truly know if we are right.

objective morality exists only in the general, not the specific.

so everyone believes that its wrong to steal and murder but everyone has a different definition of what constitutes theft and murder.

I'd like to take that one step further : Everybody agrees that theft and murder is wrong, but as well as having different understanding of what constitutes murder and theft, everyone makes different exceptions.
Modern Western society will feel that there is no excuse ever to kill another human being, yet that feeling goes into full reverse once people regard themselves in a war situation.

Your thoughts on the issue?

I agree with you. If there is a deity, she is subject to morality just as much as we are. If she is perfectly good, then she is perfectly moral, but not by a moral system she invents on a whim--rather by an independent one that she is bound to recognize.

Otherwise, any "goodness" we ascribe to the deity is arbitrary and meaningless.

now that the thread is completely godwinned...

do you think that the architects of the holocaust recognized that they were doing evil as they figured out how to kill millions of jews, gypsies, gays, and other "undesirables"?

i think they thought they were doing a great good. a higher good that made the murder of babies OK.

just as we explain away capital punishment or justifiable homicde with our rules of what constitutes murder, so did THEY.

i am sure that they found murder just as objectionable as we do. they just defined it differently.

I do not believe an objective morality exists. Human nature is too chaotic for that.

I do believe in god, though.

I'd like to take that one step further : Everybody agrees that theft and murder is wrong, but as well as having different understanding of what constitutes murder and theft, everyone makes different exceptions.
Modern Western society will feel that there is no excuse ever to kill another human being, yet that feeling goes into full reverse once people regard themselves in a war situation.

exactly

the US and its allies have killed or contributed to the deaths of more than 100,000 iraqi civilians and this is OK because we have defined it as such.

the US and its allies have killed or contributed to the deaths of more than 100,000 iraqi civilians and this is OK because we have defined it as such.

No, some people think it is okay because some people have defined it as such.

Who says they are right? Perhaps they are objectively wrong, just as people who maintain that evolution is false are objectively wrong.

since morals require an opinion.

How so?

Perhaps, but your conclusion does not follow from your premise. A form of Good is one way to justify objective morality, and a rarely used one these days at that.

All other ones, from what I have seen, are flawed or are pretending not to be a form of good.

The biological one for instance is simply relative to humanity like I said. You cannot obviously say that morals are true through logic or by definition since morals require an opinion.

I'd like to take that one step further : Everybody agrees that theft and murder is wrong, but as well as having different understanding of what constitutes murder and theft, everyone makes different exceptions.
Modern Western society will feel that there is no excuse ever to kill another human being, yet that feeling goes into full reverse once people regard themselves in a war situation.

well that's the problem isn't it?
how far should you take warfare?
which is another reason why so many people are objecting to wars now.
But some people argue there is a good excuse to kill another human being, which is usually how a war might start.
well not everyone makes exceptions to murder and theft, and those people don't always reverse their views because their government starts a war it's people didn't really want.
This is where morality becomes tricky i'd point to two main theories of Utilitarian and Kantian ethics which are concerned with morality.
Kant would say you should never kill another human being as you're not respecting their rational autonomy, however this is where Kant fails, not all people are rational (hence they might change their opinions).
Whereas following an Act Utilitarian morality, sometimes war is exuseable to please the majority and reduce the overall pain suffered. However this too can fail because the majority of people might not be nice people who are understanding and might want to start a war (and use false pretenses to justify it e.g. Hitler).
you can argue either for Objective morality, or subjective morality but often those who argue for subjective morality can fall into the trap mentioned above (Hitler example). Whereas those who argue for Objective morality might struggle to prove where it comes from, and if so can it be objective?

No, some people think it is okay because some people have defined it as such.

Who says they are right? Perhaps they are objectively wrong, just as people who maintain that evolution is false are objectively wrong.

doesnt this demonstrate that there is no objective morality?

even people who would lay claim to the same moral code--say the one laid out by jesus in the bible--will differ over whether or not those 100,000 deaths are wrong.

Regardless of whether objective morality exists, objective morality is necessary for morality to have any prescriptive force.

Since morality describes what we ought do, if morality doesn't exist objectively there's literally no reason for us to care.

I don't know if a "god" would be subject to objective morality since I don't believe in the supernatural.
And morality is obviously independent from a deity, how else could I behave morally even though I'm an atheist?

even people who would lay claim to the same moral code--say the one laid out by jesus in the bible--will differ over whether or not those 100,000 deaths are wrong.

Of course, but difference in opinion does not prove that there is no right answer.

People disagree routinely on complex empirical claims, but most people agree that empirical reality is objective nonetheless. Why should we apply a higher standard to complex moral claims? We do have a general consensus regarding simpler moral claims... most people would say that killing is, in general, wrong.

How so?

Any sentence with the word should, or ought etc... which doesn't describe how to get a specific result (i.e. you should drink if don't want to be thirsty) are opinions. And that doesn't address whether even if it can be shown objectively that you 'should' do something, that doing such action is good.

Of course, but difference in opinion does not prove that there is no right answer.

People disagree routinely on complex empirical claims, but most people agree that empirical reality is objective nonetheless. Why should we apply a higher standard to complex moral claims? We do have a general consensus regarding simpler moral claims... most people would say that killing is, in general, wrong.

gee i would think that the issue of killing 100,000 people would be an easy one to decide.

in general, we decide what is right and what is wrong by consensus. we codify what is and what is not murder and if you disagree, too damned bad.

I think all morality comes from the golden rule, though I believe in a secular version of that. We all have the ability as conscious beings to recognize other conscious beings and understand they are similar to us, and what is "good" comes from how we'd like them to treat us, we return the same to them.

Though obviously everyone compromises that all the time. Warfare is as much murder as anything else. For the US military to even allow collateral damage puts them on the same level as al-Queda.

gee i would think that the issue of killing 100,000 people would be an easy one to decide.

in general, we decide what is right and what is wrong by consensus. we codify what is and what is not murder and if you disagree, too damned bad.

Ah, that sounds like Rule Utilitarianism, where unlike Act utilitarianism, Rules are made to allow certain actions (for example our law systems have huge screeds of what is illegal and what is).
But then you get the problem of carrying a massive book around with you, what i'm saying is it's not practical on a day to day basis. it's a nice idea but it also suffers from similar problems of helping majority-leads to act utilitarian, or certain actions are okay-leads to Kantian ethics.
I don't mean to make things compicated but just pointing out some errors with your consensus theory, (which in all truth is the better morality, but does have it's issues).
Also it's not always going to be easy getting the majority of people to agree what is right and what isn't.
Another issue with consensus idea is, does this include your friends, your city, your country, where does the majority stop (as in some cases the majority can become the minority, if you change the pegging of who decides).
Again you make a valid point, but it is possible to argue other theories.

Ah, that sounds like Rule Utilitarianism, where unlike Act utilitarianism, Rules are made to allow certain actions (for example our law systems have huge screeds of what is illegal and what is).
But then you get the problem of carrying a massive book around with you, what i'm saying is it's not practical on a day to day basis. it's a nice idea but it also suffers from similar problems of helping majority-leads to act utilitarian, or certain actions are okay-leads to Kantian ethics.
I don't mean to make things compicated but just pointing out some errors with your consensus theory, (which in all truth is the better morality, but does have it's issues).
Also it's not always going to be easy getting the majority of people to agree what is right and what isn't.
Another issue with consensus idea is, does this include your friends, your city, your country, where does the majority stop (as in some cases the majority can become the minority, if you change the pegging of who decides).
Again you make a valid point, but it is possible to argue other theories.

in general we DO decide what is moral by consensus. do you really disagree?

we learn the fine divisions of what is murder from discussions with our parents, in school, by watching cop shows on TV, by reading the outcomes of various trials in the newspapers.

then we as individuals have to apply this understanding to the realities of daily life. is it moral for me to join the military knowing that i might end up killing or contributing to the deaths of civilians? should i be protesting against the death penalty or is it a just use of government power? it is right to keep a gun in the drawer beside my bed for the purpose of shooting and perhaps killing an intruder to my home?

and in those fine distinctions and circumstances of life we see that there IS no consensus on morality, it is always dependant on the exact circumstances involved and moral people will disagree on what is right and wrong.

Any sentence with the word should, or ought etc... which doesn't describe how to get a specific result (i.e. you should drink if don't want to be thirsty) are opinions.

Aren't you begging the question?

Usually people say this because of the is/ought distinction... but that distinction can just as easily be referenced by the side advancing objective morality. Indeed, logical fallacies in general seem to suggest that we should not engage in them... and is/ought in particular seems highly relevant to moral decision-making.

We can say, for instance, that we should treat questions of decision-making ("What should I do?") as matters of moral principle (systems of "should" that can lead to "should" conclusions) rather than material inclination ("I want to do this", which by is/ought does not prove that I actually should do it.)

And that doesn't address whether even if it can be shown objectively that you 'should' do something, that doing such action is good.

Who cares? What matters is whether the action is right, and it does show that.

gee i would think that the issue of killing 100,000 people would be an easy one to decide.

In wartime? Hardly. For good reason, wartime makes moral issues rather more ambiguous.

Furthermore, I'm not convinced that the difference of opinion here is so much a moral one as it is an empirical one. Plenty of people would probably maintain that we have not in fact killed 100,000 people. Others would insist that the reason the deaths are justified is that the war will bring about some exceptionally worthy end--like democracy and prosperity for Iraq. Those who argue that the deaths are unjustified tend not to argue with the moral argument, but instead dispute that it will bring about such ends.

So, influenced by the thread asking whether a press conference by an assumed indisputable Jesus would make me a Christian, I came to realize that I believe that objective morality is independent of a creator-figure or other similar deity. I'm not convinced that "God", or whoever else, is right by default, but that They are subject to objective morality just as we humans are.

Your thoughts on the issue?

Moral or immoral behavior can only exist in the presence of peers. Who are God's peers?

We can say, for instance, that we should treat questions of decision-making ("What should I do?") as matters of moral principle (systems of "should" that can lead to "should" conclusions) rather than material inclination ("I want to do this", which by is/ought does not prove that I actually should do it.)


Well what I'm basically saying is, if we base ethics on what should be done to achieve a "should" result, then we are still left with the problem with defining what results are right and which results are wrong (ultimately based on opinion). How can they be defined?


Who cares? What matters is whether the action is right, and it does show that.


The same still applies, you cannot show that doing what you "should" do to achieve a desired result is still always the right thing to do.

I think all morality comes from the golden rule, though I believe in a secular version of that. We all have the ability as conscious beings to recognize other conscious beings and understand they are similar to us, and what is "good" comes from how we'd like them to treat us, we return the same to them.

Though obviously everyone compromises that all the time. Warfare is as much murder as anything else. For the US military to even allow collateral damage puts them on the same level as al-Queda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Kant was way ahead of you. :p

Well what I'm basically saying is, if we base ethics on what should be done to achieve a "should" result, then we are still left with the problem with defining what results are right and which results are wrong (ultimately based on opinion).

I am not convinced that this is so simple as "opinion."

Certainly it has an element of opinion in it. There may be more than one right answer, depending on our moral opinions. But there may still be wrong answers... for starters, the most basic: "Don't consider 'right' at all, just do what you want to do, or what is in your interests." That's a violation of is/ought.

And once we've gotten that far, once we recognize the need for moral justification for our actions, we can begin discussing the nature of moral justification: the kind of features our moral systems must necessarily have. For one, rational consistency: if we assert something as independent moral principle in one circumstance, logically we cannot deny it in another. And that poses significant, if not fatal, problems for, say, selfishness, which is predicated on the denial of universality.

[QUOTE]in general we DO decide what is moral by consensus. do you really disagree?

Well no, you're right to a point we do decide what is done by moral consensus, however should our own opinions, become clouded be it political or whatever the majority can still be wrong.
For example there's alot of differences between Western culture and Eastern culture and as a result have different laws in place, but what the West might consider moral the East might consider immoral, e.g. Pre-arranged marriages.

we learn the fine divisions of what is murder from discussions with our parents, in school, by watching cop shows on TV, by reading the outcomes of various trials in the newspapers.

True and in this modern age there's few reasons not to be able to pick up what is right and wrong. But there have been occaisons in the past where people don't have access to those things, go to a different area and do something they think is moral from his society, when for the majority of them it's immoral.

then we as individuals have to apply this understanding to the realities of daily life. is it moral for me to join the military knowing that i might end up killing or contributing to the deaths of civilians? should i be protesting against the death penalty or is it a just use of government power? it is right to keep a gun in the drawer beside my bed for the purpose of shooting and perhaps killing an intruder to my home?

What a minute, you said earlier that you take in right and wrong from outside sources, and now you say it depends on the circumstances. There's something there that doesn't quite fit.

and in those fine distinctions and circumstances of life we see that there IS no consensus on morality, it is always dependant on the exact circumstances involved and moral people will disagree on what is right and wrong.

So you're saying sometimes you have to do what's right by you in certain circumstances when no other option is available to you. But you could argue that there was always another option for you, then you got yourself in a tricky situation(which would be unfair). This last point links to the Freewill Determinism debate which although interesting, i'd prefer to keep seperate, because there's a whole load of other things to argue then.

This morality really does get complicated, at the moment i think we're at arguing about epistemological issues (subjective/objective). which suggests that morality might be a personal ideal so does it really exist (subjective argument).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Kant was way ahead of you. :p

Err I wouldn't quite say it's the same. Firstly, Kant would say that if you do anything to anyone for any other reason then duty, it's not moral. Also, his categorical imperative means that anything you would do could only be right if you do it in every possible situation, to every possible person or thing.

Moral or immoral behavior can only exist in the presence of peers. Who are God's peers?

Humans.

Err I wouldn't quite say it's the same. Firstly, Kant would say that if you do anything to anyone for any other reason then duty, it's not moral. Also, his categorical imperative means that anything you would do could only be right if you do it in every possible situation, to every possible person or thing.

You're right.
but the two are very similar, Kant refers to Morality whereas the Golden Rule refers to human behaviour, which are similar.
so he wasn't far off.

Firstly, Kant would say that if you do anything to anyone for any other reason then duty, it's not moral.

Well, he would say that we must do what is right because it is right, and avoid what is wrong because it is wrong.

But there may, in a variety of circumstances, be more than one morally legitimate course of action... and in those, we can choose however we please.

Also, his categorical imperative means that anything you would do could only be right if you do it in every possible situation, to every possible person or thing.

Nonsense. It only means that we must recognize the maxim of our action as morally legitimate in every circumstance. Our maxim need not assert obligation--it need not say we must do something. It can simply say that we may.

Humans.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but many humans would. Have we become capable of judging God?

Err I wouldn't quite say it's the same. Firstly, Kant would say that if you do anything to anyone for any other reason then duty, it's not moral. Also, his categorical imperative means that anything you would do could only be right if you do it in every possible situation, to every possible person or thing.

I was merely noting the similiarity between CI and The Golden Rule. Kant also distinguished between perfect and imperfect duties in his writings. Quite simply, not all actions are met with a categorical imperative to act in a certain way, and even so, there are multiple different ways at looking at CI's dilemmas.

Well, he would say that we must do what is right because it is right, and avoid what is wrong because it is wrong.

But there may, in a variety of circumstances, be more than one morally legitimate course of action... and in those, we can choose however we please.


But in general, it's all duty for duties sake which takes priority.


Nonsense. It only means that we must recognize the maxim of our action as morally legitimate in every circumstance. Our maxim need not assert obligation--it need not say we must do something. It can simply say that we may.

Ok, this may sound silly but that's actually what I meant. I didn't mean to say we had to do it, I mean that any moral action we perform must be moral in whatever circumstance it is applied to. Obviously this causes a problem, since it would be impossible to really universalise most rules.

Well no, you're right to a point we do decide what is done by moral consensus, however should our own opinions, become clouded be it political or whatever the majority can still be wrong.
For example there's alot of differences between Western culture and Eastern culture and as a result have different laws in place, but what the West might consider moral the East might consider immoral, e.g. Pre-arranged marriages.



True and in this modern age there's few reasons not to be able to pick up what is right and wrong. But there have been occaisons in the past where people don't have access to those things, go to a different area and do something they think is moral from his society, when for the majority of them it's immoral.


What a minute, you said earlier that you take in right and wrong from outside sources, and now you say it depends on the circumstances. There's something there that doesn't quite fit.



So you're saying sometimes you have to do what's right by you in certain circumstances when no other option is available to you. But you could argue that there was always another option for you, then you got yourself in a tricky situation(which would be unfair). This last point links to the Freewill Determinism debate which although interesting, i'd prefer to keep seperate, because there's a whole load of other things to argue then.

This morality really does get complicated, at the moment i think we're at arguing about epistemological issues (subjective/objective). which suggests that morality might be a personal ideal so does it really exist (subjective argument).

my argument is that objective morality only exists in general principle--"thou shalt not kill"--and not in specific circumstances. in specific circumstances morality is subjective. how else could one good christian find the killing of 100,000+ iraqis an outrage and another find it the expected outcome of war?

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but many humans would. Have we become capable of judging God?

*shrugs* it's worth a try isn't it? If god doesn't feel like talking to us, why not argue about her for ages until God get's fed up and says something along the lines of "Shut the hell up you idiots!, okay i exist! quit arguing and get on with your lives! oh and by the way you can believe any religion you like because they all have flaws somewhere".

*shrugs* it's worth a try isn't it? If god doesn't feel like talking to us, why not argue about her for ages until God get's fed up and says something along the lines of "Shut the hell up you idiots!, okay i exist! quit arguing and get on with your lives! oh and by the way you can believe any religion you like because they all have flaws somewhere".

i believe that god's response, paraphrased from the book of job, is "where the fuck were YOU when i laid the foundations of the world? if you dont like the way this world works, make one of your own"

But in general, it's all duty for duties sake which takes priority.

Yes, and this makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

If we are rational creatures deciding how we should act, we must be concerned with what is right, for right action is nothing more than what we should do... at least once we have recognized the fallacy of deriving an "ought" from an "is."

I didn't mean to say we had to do it, I mean that any moral action we perform must be moral in whatever circumstance it is applied to.

Kant is not concerned, ultimately, with actions. A squirrel runs, a rock falls, a storm hits--we do not speak of their morality. What matters is the maxim of the action, and it is that we must universalize.

There is no convincing reason our maxim cannot concern itself at all with circumstances. The important element is that our maxim is not dependent on a particular circumstance--that we can always universalize its content, whatever that content happens to be.

Yes, and this makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

If we are rational creatures deciding how we should act, we must be concerned with what is right, for right action is nothing more than what we should do... at least once we have recognized the fallacy of deriving an "ought" from an "is."


It may be logical, but it's just not very human. Some may prefer to say that they help people from emotional intent, from sympathy for them, rather than because it is their duty.


Kant is not concerned, ultimately, with actions. A squirrel runs, a rock falls, a storm hits--we do not speak of their morality. What matters is the maxim of the action, and it is that we must universalize.

There is no convincing reason our maxim cannot concern itself at all with circumstances. The important element is that our maxim is not dependent on a particular circumstance--that we can always universalize its content, whatever that content happens to be.

I guess. My philosophy teacher fails then if this is true, since he always put emphasis on the action rather then the maxim of the action. I thought a maxim only applied to the hypothetical imperative rather than the categorical imperative though? Which also I thought was rejected by Kant as a legitimate morality.

It may be logical, but it's just not very human.

Kant never said morality was. ;)

Some may prefer to say that they help people from emotional intent, from sympathy for them, rather than because it is their duty.

But why do we elevate sympathy over other sadism? Only because we recognize that one leads us to moral behavior, and the other does not.

There's nothing wrong with that reasoning--indeed, Kant encourages us to encourage sympathy and compassion in ourselves and in others, precisely because it helps us act morally. The problem is when we make our moral judgment dependent on sympathy instead of reason... because that is as irrational as founding it on any other moral inclination.

My philosophy teacher fails then if this is true, since he always put emphasis on the action rather then the maxim of the action.

I am no expert, but I'm pretty sure he's wrong, if your description of his position is accurate.

I thought a maxim only applied to the hypothetical imperative rather than the categorical imperative though?

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." That's the first formulation of the categorical imperative.

But why do we elevate sympathy over other sadism? Only because we recognize that one leads us to moral behavior, and the other does not.

There's nothing wrong with that reasoning--indeed, Kant encourages us to encourage sympathy and compassion in ourselves and in others, precisely because it helps us act morally. The problem is when we make our moral judgment dependent on sympathy instead of reason... because that is as irrational as founding it on any other moral inclination.


Still, I mean if you look at Kant's life, it was pretty shitty and boring. He always did his duty, which entailed a lot of work and not much pleasure, and he only did it because it was his duty. I can't live like that.


"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." That's the first formulation of the categorical imperative.

I'm still not sure if by maxim he means simply the inner intent of the action. Since he did famously say for example that lying is never permissible in any circumstance.

So, influenced by the thread asking whether a press conference by an assumed indisputable Jesus would make me a Christian, I came to realize that I believe that objective morality is independent of a creator-figure or other similar deity. I'm not convinced that "God", or whoever else, is right by default, but that They are subject to objective morality just as we humans are.

Your thoughts on the issue?

This really doesn't make sense. How is a creator bound by the rules it has made?

Everyone believes in objective morality - or at least acts as if they believed in it - regardless of whether they admit it or not.

To be more exact, everyone acts as if their preferred moral code was the true objective universal code by which everyone else should be judged. No one is willing to let people get away with crimes under the excuse that the criminals used a different moral code which can justify their actions.

Indeed, it is impossible to consistently act as if morality were subjective, because you will eventually run into a situation where you must make a moral decision and there are two moral codes that dictate two opposite and irreconcilable courses of action.

I agree with you. If there is a deity, she is subject to morality just as much as we are. If she is perfectly good, then she is perfectly moral, but not by a moral system she invents on a whim--rather by an independent one that she is bound to recognize.

Otherwise, any "goodness" we ascribe to the deity is arbitrary and meaningless.

But what roots the independent moral system in meaningfulness?

This really doesn't make sense. How is a creator bound by the rules it has made?

Because they are the rules.

The creator can change them. The creator cannot violate them.

But what roots the independent moral system in meaningfulness?

Well, in the context of that post, simply independence.

If goodness is dependent on the deity's whim, then to assert that the deity is infinitely good is tautological. If it is not, then we are actually contributing something substantive.

Everyone believes in objective morality - or at least acts as if they believed in it - regardless of whether they admit it or not.

To be more exact, everyone acts as if their preferred moral code was the true objective universal code by which everyone else should be judged. No one is willing to let people get away with crimes under the excuse that the criminals used a different moral code which can justify their actions.

Indeed, it is impossible to consistently act as if morality were subjective, because you will eventually run into a situation where you must make a moral decision and there are two moral codes that dictate two opposite and irreconcilable courses of action.

Then you would have to wiegh the consequences of your actions and chose the one most likey to be the most beneficial. And guess what: You will still have made a subjective decision. There is no morality outside of human definition, and that is entirely subjective.

Because they are the rules.

The creator can change them. The creator cannot violate them.

Certainly he can change them through the very act of violating them.

If goodness is dependent on the deity's whim, then to assert that the deity is infinitely good is tautological.

It is still valuable knowledge. If we know that the deity IS goodness, then we know what is right and what is wrong.

And I don't think that would be any less substantive than any other.

If it is not, then we are actually contributing something substantive.

Like what?

Then you would have to wiegh the consequences of your actions and chose the one most likey to be the most beneficial.
But different moral codes have different definitions of what is "beneficial."

Besides, by saying that we should weigh consequences, you're already arguing for consequentialism, which is a type of objective morality. Try again.

Certainly he can change them through the very act of violating them.

That's not changing them, that's violating them.

In the world, by current rules, there can be no such thing as a four-sided triangle. Perhaps the deity can change the rules, can make it so that proof by definition doesn't work. But as long as that rule holds, the deity cannot create a four-sided triangle.

So while God may create morality, it is still independent of Him in that He must actually change the way the world works (using "the way the world works" broadly) in order to change it. He does not dictate it on a whim, precisely because that is how He has created the world.

It is still valuable knowledge. If we know that the deity IS goodness, then we know what is right and what is wrong.

If we know that goodness is whatever the deity decrees, yes, that knowledge is valuable.

But usually when speaking of God's perfection, people mean not that God is perfect by God's own concept of perfection, but that God is perfect by some objective, independent concept of perfection that he fits perfectly.

In the world, by current rules, there can be no such thing as a four-sided triangle. Perhaps the deity can change the rules, can make it so that proof by definition doesn't work. But as long as that rule holds, the deity cannot create a four-sided triangle.

And the second the deity does create a four-sided triangle, why has he not also spontaneously changed the rule.

He does not dictate it on a whim, precisely because that is how He has created the world.

You are going to have to provide a better explanation of this.

And the second the deity does create a four-sided triangle, why has he not also spontaneously changed the rule.

Perhaps he has. But if he has, the world would be such that we would no longer have compelling reasons to assume that a four-sided triangle is impossible.

You are going to have to provide a better explanation of this.

God's whim is arbitrary. "God says x is right" does not actually mean "x is right." That's clear, rationally. The ultimate determining principle of morality must therefore in some sense be independent of God.

Now, perhaps God was the one who instituted the rules of reason that lead me to that conclusion... but He cannot alter the conclusion without changing those rules.

So, influenced by the thread asking whether a press conference by an assumed indisputable Jesus would make me a Christian, I came to realize that I believe that objective morality is independent of a creator-figure or other similar deity. I'm not convinced that "God", or whoever else, is right by default, but that They are subject to objective morality just as we humans are.

Your thoughts on the issue?

Well, I don't believe in objective morality at all. Morality is always built in relation to other things/beliefs or principles, so morality is always subjective...

So, influenced by the thread asking whether a press conference by an assumed indisputable Jesus would make me a Christian, I came to realize that I believe that objective morality is independent of a creator-figure or other similar deity. I'm not convinced that "God", or whoever else, is right by default, but that They are subject to objective morality just as we humans are.

Your thoughts on the issue?

I have to disagree with you. The idea of an omnipotent being, one that is being time, and space, and even any real human understanding should be, in theory fully capable of being 'outside' of an objective morality as well. Indeed, perhaps the 'objectivity' of morality could be ascribed to His (or Her, if your into that sort of thing) omnipotence. Example: A mom sets an 8 O'clock bedtime for her six year old child, in this case, the law of right behaviour (bedtime at 8, unless some extenuating cercumstance changes the situation) is ascribed objectively (in other words, it would be naughty, or 'not good' to defy the bedtime) to the child, but not to the mother, who in this case represents omnipotence in her ability to set any (or, indeed, no) bedtime, that she herself need not be subject to.

Getting back to main point, have you considered that it is God's own omnipotence (in a 'might makes right' way perhaps) that gives Him (again, or her) the 'authority' to create an objective morality, while being Himself exempt from it at His own discretion?

Although I give you kudos for the thread idea, it's a pretty good one.

This really doesn't make sense. How is a creator bound by the rules it has made?

The OP is suggesting that should there be objective morality that it would be independent from God, and above even Him, rather than His creation.

I agree with you. If there is a deity, she is subject to morality just as much as we are. If she is perfectly good, then she is perfectly moral, but not by a moral system she invents on a whim--rather by an independent one that she is bound to recognize.

Otherwise, any "goodness" we ascribe to the deity is arbitrary and meaningless.

But perhaps it is by God's own essence, His own being that makes it not arbitrary. Why aren't all of the US's laws arbitrary? They were made by people for arbitrary reasons, all law, and morality is arbitrary because someone must have come up with it. Not necessarily.

We grant authority to those (in America) that we vote for, to represent us, and our interests. This means that people can decide on laws, and they aren't arbitrary by the sole fact that we have given them the authority within our society.

This being said there is nothing to claim (reasonably) that God cannot of Himself alone be in a position of authority enough to decide for Himself what the objective moral code for the universe should be. We have to remember that accepting the idea of a Supreme Being means we have to be careful not to humanize Him too much, as humans have no universal supremacy, so by the argument of God's existence (and our assumed inability to comprehend His being in almost every way) we have to take into account things that need not apply to humans.

Now, if you can, give me a reason why any objective moral code that a being of infinite knowledge, wisdom and power need be arbitrary. Can you give me a reason to suggest He cannot have the authority in Himself, and in His being alone?

Not to critisize, the same topic (from The Euthyphro) cam up in a philosophy class, after some introspective thought I came up with this argument to the idea of arbitrarity.

its kind of hard to answer. I think all people believe things like freedom, life, justice and so on should be repected and protected. However people can come to very different conclusions based of this. For example some one may argue the death penalty is unjust and devalues life, however I would argue that we devalue life if we fail to punish those who take it and in a way where justice is carried out. Thus, the death penalty.

So while God may create morality, it is still independent of Him in that He must actually change the way the world works (using "the way the world works" broadly) in order to change it. He does not dictate it on a whim, precisely because that is how He has created the world.

Again, how can we know that by by the defintion of God being an infinite being in ever imaginable (and presumably unimaginable) way, that God cannot be above a rule that He created. Must he subscribe to the laws of gravity because He created it? Must He not be able to create matter or energy as are consistent with the known laws of the universe? If so how did he create anything if He made matter, and energy uncreatable, and ultimately indestructible?

When working with the idea of an all-powerful God, you have to remember that things beyond your most imaginative human understanding are as nothing. For God's existence to even be used in argument one must accept what is beyond human understanding, that being formlessness, and timelessness, why not morallessness (in that he is not necessarily bound to moral laws he ascribed for us).

God's whim is arbitrary. "God says x is right" does not actually mean "x is right." That's clear, rationally. The ultimate determining principle of morality must therefore in some sense be independent of God.

Says who? Again you are using human understanding, and applying it to something foreign to every aspect of human understanding. Merely because our whims are arbitrary is no gaurantee that some almighty being is facing the same restrictions. Your argument doesn't follow because you are applying reason to an area of thought to which no reason can be adequetly applied at our level of evolution/ability.

But different moral codes have different definitions of what is "beneficial."

Besides, by saying that we should weigh consequences, you're already arguing for consequentialism, which is a type of objective morality. Try again.

1.People will chose what is personally beneficial, regardless of moral code, and the fact that different codes will have different definitions of "beneficial" proves that moral codes are subjective.

2. Consequentialism: People will chose what is personally beneficial to themselves, regardless of moral code, or benefits that others derive from their decision. Thus, even consequentialism is subjective.

BTW, I agree with the first part of your original post I quoted.

They were made by people for arbitrary reasons, all law, and morality is arbitrary because someone must have come up with it. Not necessarily.

Did someone "come up" with the rules of logic, the laws of nature? No--we discovered them. Same with morality.

This being said there is nothing to claim (reasonably) that God cannot of Himself alone be in a position of authority enough to decide for Himself what the objective moral code for the universe should be.

Still, He must get that authority from somewhere. It must be justified.

Now, if you can, give me a reason why any objective moral code that a being of infinite knowledge, wisdom and power need be arbitrary. Can you give me a reason to suggest He cannot have the authority in Himself, and in His being alone?

Yes. It's the simple truth of is/ought. "God says it is right to do x" does not, in and of itself, lead to "It is right to do x."

You need to justify some other kind of moral claim first: either "God only says what is true" (in which case you are asserting an independent morality because God's statement of truth is referencing it) or "God has the right to decide what is right" (in which case you are asserting an independent morality because you must found that authority on something other than God, otherwise your argument is circular.)

Must he subscribe to the laws of gravity because He created it? Must He not be able to create matter or energy as are consistent with the known laws of the universe? If so how did he create anything if He made matter, and energy uncreatable, and ultimately indestructible?

The laws of nature are not the laws of reason. We have no reason to expect that they hold necessarily; we have no reason to believe with any kind of certainty that they will not fail tomorrow.

For God's existence to even be used in argument one must accept what is beyond human understanding, that being formlessness, and timelessness, why not morallessness (in that he is not necessarily bound to moral laws he ascribed for us).

These are different kinds of "beyond human understanding."

I can't understand what it's like to be a being beyond time or a being without form, but there's nothing logically impossible about such a being.

Your argument doesn't follow because you are applying reason to an area of thought to which no reason can be adequetly applied at our level of evolution/ability.

What, morality? That's a pretty striking claim... it destroys the whole endeavor, if true. But I see no reason to believe it.

Edit: Properly speaking, the question is not "Is God bound by morality?" The question is whether I, as a human being concerned with what is right, can rationally justify doing something simply because God says so... as if God's whim dictated right.

Did someone "come up" with the rules of logic, the laws of nature? No--we discovered them. Same with morality.

Not really. The laws of nature are unmovable laws while morality is completely subjunctive and based on the cultural biases of the time. In the 1850s it was possible to be a racist shit and still be considered upright and moral. Nowadays, one can have quite a lot of sex and still be considered a decent person.

Moral codes aren't arbitrary, but they are very subjunctive. Moral rules rarely have any consistency and there is no such thing as objective morality. Morality is a series of uncodified laws drawn up by society which are percieved to be necessary for a member to be "good, upstanding, upright" and are subject to changing circumstances and times.

In the 1850s it was possible to be a racist shit and still be considered upright and moral.

That's right. It was also possible to be a well-respected biologist and not believe in evolution.

Moral codes aren't arbitrary, but they are very subjunctive.

If they are not arbitrary, then they are discovered: we do not assert them on whim.

They may, of course, nevertheless be subjective. For instance, if we derive emotions from biology, then morality is subjective, but it is still "discovered" in that we recognize those biological moral sentiments--we do not create them.

There is no "moral order" in the universe to be discovered.

Who said there was? There may nevertheless be a moral order in our minds.

Morality is laws drawn up by mankind

No, it isn't. What reason do you have to obey "laws drawn up by mankind"? They're just laws, not moral imperatives.

If they are not arbitrary, then they are discovered: we do not assert them on whim.

They may, of course, nevertheless be subjective. For instance, if we derive emotions from biology, then morality is subjective, but it is still "discovered" in that we recognize those biological moral sentiments--we do not create them.

I'd dispute that point. I'd say they were created rather than discovered. There is no "moral order" in the universe to be discovered. Morality is laws drawn up by mankind to help regulate society by encouraging people to regulate themselves according to what is most needed by society.

The OP is suggesting that should there be objective morality that it would be independent from God, and above even Him, rather than His creation.

But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

Who said there was? There may nevertheless be a moral order in our minds.

No, it isn't. What reason do you have to obey "laws drawn up by mankind"? They're just laws, not moral imperatives.

No. Morality is classified under "socially created reality"

Then what are these moral imperatives?

I have to disagree with you. The idea of an omnipotent being, one that is being time, and space, and even any real human understanding should be, in theory fully capable of being 'outside' of an objective morality as well. Indeed, perhaps the 'objectivity' of morality could be ascribed to His (or Her, if your into that sort of thing) omnipotence. Example: A mom sets an 8 O'clock bedtime for her six year old child, in this case, the law of right behaviour (bedtime at 8, unless some extenuating cercumstance changes the situation) is ascribed objectively (in other words, it would be naughty, or 'not good' to defy the bedtime) to the child, but not to the mother, who in this case represents omnipotence in her ability to set any (or, indeed, no) bedtime, that she herself need not be subject to.It's a faulty example, and here's why: When you go to bed isn't an issue of morality. Mother and children aren't on the same level, so while it is wrong to defy bedtime at 8 for the children, this is not the case for the mother, on grounds that she is an authority and makes rules that apply to developing human beings, and not to the authority.

An analogy to that where a deity is involved would be that humans have to die of old age or injuries while the deity is immortal. This wouldn't be an issue of morality either, even if the deity makes the rule that humans can't be immortal, since they are not on the same level.

Conversely, the mother would be considered immoral by us (her peers) if she were to use draconian punishments for infractions of her children. That she can dish out punishment is not morally questionable (although it would be from the perspective of her children). That the punishment can be too harsh is an issue of morality, and it stands above the mother.

Getting back to main point, have you considered that it is God's own omnipotence (in a 'might makes right' way perhaps) that gives Him (again, or her) the 'authority' to create an objective morality, while being Himself exempt from it at His own discretion?I have taken it into account. However, "might makes right" is immoral, hence any system based on that would be immoral. Thus, exempting Themselves from the rules they set up because They are powerful enough and no one can stop Them would be immoral.

As I said in the Jesus-press-conference thread, there's no objective morality. Morality is a human construct. There are certainly moral concepts which can be agreed upon by a great many humans, but this does not require any objective basis for those concepts.

It's a faulty example, and here's why: When you go to bed isn't an issue of morality.

But, it is... Morality is merely a code of conduct held authoritatively.... So in this instance, BED TIME is a "moral issue"... As it's a code of conduct established within an authoritative construct (the mother sets the rule of how the child is to conduct bedtime).


Mother and children aren't on the same level, so while it is wrong to defy bedtime at 8 for the children, this is not the case for the mother, on grounds that she is an authority and makes rules that apply to developing human beings, and not to the authority.

No, but she is the authority to the child, just as God (within the construct of Abrahamic faiths) is the authority to mankind... And establishes rules for their conduct.


An analogy to that where a deity is involved would be that humans have to die of old age or injuries while the deity is immortal. This wouldn't be an issue of morality either, even if the deity makes the rule that humans can't be immortal, since they are not on the same level.

Correct... But since this can be seen as a relative issue of morality, since within the Abrahamic faiths God has decreed (established) death.


Conversely, the mother would be considered immoral by us (her peers) if she were to use draconian punishments for infractions of her children. That she can dish out punishment is not morally questionable (although it would be from the perspective of her children). That the punishment can be too harsh is an issue of morality, and it stands above the mother.

And in this same context, God would have no "higher" code to follow, simply because God has no peers... Morality is either established relative within peer-groups, or by a higher authority... Neither context being applicable to some form of singular supreme Deity, who lacks both any higher authority, or any peer-groups... In essence, such a being simple IS the authority, and IS His/Her own peer-group.... When the mother establishes a system outside the moral establishement of her peer-group, she becomes answerable to her peer-group (society) as an authority... God cannot operate "outside" of the moral establishment of His/Her peergroup (as a singular deity) simply because there IS NO peer-group.


I have taken it into account. However, "might makes right" is immoral, hence any system based on that would be immoral. Thus, exempting Themselves from the rules they set up because They are powerful enough and no one can stop Them would be immoral.

Except, where there is no higher authority, there is no immorality.... morality is relative to authority... Once you've reached the top, there's nothing higher... Your logical problem is that when the mother is answerable to no one, you want the child to be able to establish morality... This is actually what you're doing within the context of your idea... Since God (as a singular authority) has no peers, and no higher authority, you choose to attempt to make him a logical subject of your own moral construct.... This the child is attempting to define morality upon the mother.

But, it is... Morality is merely a code of conduct held authoritatively.... So in this instance, BED TIME is a "moral issue"... As it's a code of conduct established within an authoritative construct (the mother sets the rule of how the child is to conduct bedtime).The moral issue would not be when the kids and mom go to bed, but whether the kids obey or not.
No, but she is the authority to the child, just as God (within the construct of Abrahamic faiths) is the authority to mankind... And establishes rules for their conduct.Yes, she is, but she does not stand above morality. This means that the rules she sets (and the rules a deity would set) are subject to moral scrutiny as well.

And in this same context, God would have no "higher" code to follow, simply because God has no peers... Says who? God? :p
Also, the question would be, "What are goods peers pertaining to establishing objective morality?" Why would humanity not be able to count as peers on grounds of being sentient?
Morality is either established relative within peer-groups, or by a higher authority... Neither context being applicable to some form of singular supreme Deity, who lacks both any higher authority, or any peer-groups... In essence, such a being simple IS the authority, and IS His/Her own peer-group.... When the mother establishes a system outside the moral establishement of her peer-group, she becomes answerable to her peer-group (society) as an authority... God cannot operate "outside" of the moral establishment of His/Her peergroup (as a singular deity) simply because there IS NO peer-group.

Except, where there is no higher authority, there is no immorality.... morality is relative to authority... Once you've reached the top, there's nothing higher... Your logical problem is that when the mother is answerable to no one, you want the child to be able to establish morality... This is actually what you're doing within the context of your idea... Since God (as a singular authority) has no peers, and no higher authority, you choose to attempt to make him a logical subject of your own moral construct.... This the child is attempting to define morality upon the mother.So is morality a matter of enforceability then, and not objective at all?

The moral issue would not be when the kids and mom go to bed, but whether the kids obey or not.
Yes, she is, but she does not stand above morality. This means that the rules she sets (and the rules a deity would set) are subject to moral scrutiny as well.

Says who? God? :p
Also, the question would be, "What are goods peers pertaining to establishing objective morality?" Why would humanity not be able to count as peers on grounds of being sentient?
So is morality a matter of enforceability then, and not objective at all?

1. Scrutiny by who? When a mother establishes a code of conduct on a child, and penalties for infraction... Her rules and penalties are open to judgment by her peer-group/society (as an authority), or other such authority which establishes conduct upon her... There is no being with the authority of judgment over some supreme/high singular deity... Such as being by its mere existence IS the singular and sole authority...

2. Humanity, by its placement, cannot be a peer... A peer is someone with equal standing within a group.... An adult's peers, are other adults; a child's peers are other children.... A singular deity has no peers... You may WANT for such a being to be on equal footing with yourself, much as the screaming toddler WANTS mom to be on equal footing with his/her-self, but such simply is not the logical case... Diety, Humanity, Parent, Child... In that order, not upside down... Not because it's "right", but simply because it IS...

Now, you can continue to take rules of conduct you've hammered out relative to your peer-group, and then keep attempting to convince everyone such rules are "objective" all you want... The simple fact of the matter is the only thing it proves is that you have no idea what objectivity is at all...

Morality is never objective....

1. Scrutiny by who? When a mother establishes a code of conduct on a child, and penalties for infraction... Her rules and penalties are open to judgment by her peer-group/society (as an authority), or other such authority which establishes conduct upon her... There is no being with the authority of judgment over some supreme/high singular deity... Such as being by its mere existence IS the singular and sole authority...Problems with this: What you are talking about is no longer objective morality, but subjective morality based on what the peers think. The argument boils down to "Is there objective morality or is morality subjective to whomever is in power?"

2. Humanity, by its placement, cannot be a peer... A peer is someone with equal standing within a group.... An adult's peers, are other adults; a child's peers are other children.... A singular deity has no peers... You may WANT for such a being to be on equal footing with yourself, much as the screaming toddler WANTS mom to be on equal footing with his/her-self, but such simply is not the logical case... Diety, Humanity, Parent, Child... In that order, not upside down... Not because it's "right", but simply because it IS...Then perhaps LG was incorrect in stating that morality is what our peers think.

Now, you can continue to take rules of conduct you've hammered out relative to your peer-group, and then keep attempting to convince everyone such rules are "objective" all you want... The simple fact of the matter is the only thing it proves is that you have no idea what objectivity is at all... Oh, no, I'm well aware what objective morality is.

Morality is never objective....Problem is, you haven't been arguing that, but arguing based on that.

Did someone "come up" with the rules of logic, the laws of nature?
*Interruption*

Kinda. What people "came up" with was the formalisms that describe observed causality. The Laws of Logic and Nature are two such systems of formalisation.

I guess this doesn't really address the point though, which was that the laws are inspired by something, and that this something has an existence independent of the observers, whether or not the actual "laws" are themselves subjective. The thing is that the aspects of existence that we model through science are stochastic (sometimes even deterministic) processes; that is, they involve a change in state (or lack thereof) that can be objectively observed and used as the basis for abstraction.

Morality is not so straightforward. What exactly is it that our "moral laws" are trying to model, if morality is to be considered to have an objective element? If it's a given individual's preferences, then objectivity is assured assuming the preferences are somehow objectively defined (this being the point of contention with the God approach in that God has thus far evaded objective definition, never mind observation), but other than that, it seems almost impossible to put some factor to which morality is an abstraction. We cannot hide behind the old adage "that which makes for successful civilisation" because success is itself a subjective notion, and we cannot say "that which is good" because that would be circular.

So what is it then? Is it our basic human instincts? Then why does morality and human desire so often conflict? Is it that which causes pleasure? Then what do we say to the differences between what one person enjoys and another?

Problems with this: What you are talking about is no longer objective morality, but subjective morality based on what the peers think. The argument boils down to "Is there objective morality or is morality subjective to whomever is in power?"

Then perhaps LG was incorrect in stating that morality is what our peers think.

Oh, no, I'm well aware what objective morality is.

Problem is, you haven't been arguing that, but arguing based on that.

I actually did... by defining what "morality" in fact was... Morality is an authoritatively held set of rules for a code of conduct.... Or it could be said an established set of rules for conduct... In any sense, this is always relative... these rules are established authoritatively by one or more beings... These rules may be established by parents upon children, a state upon its citizens, humankind upon humankind, God upon humankind, what-have-you... In any case, the "rules" are subject to the determination of people or God, depending on context and scope... Any rule established by man, is relative to mans determination upon himself (as a society)... and is relative to that... anything which is "relative" is automatically non-objective... As soon as a rule is established by being(s) it's relative to that(those) being(s)... That(Those) beings have authority over the enforcement[and penalties imposed] for infraction of those rules... But a lesser never has authority over a greater... A person is subject to social rules of conduct (morals)... But society is not subject to a persons rules of conduct (morals)... It's subjective to the authority upon which rules were established... A parent will establish rules that a house must follow, and will also establish rules that only the kids will follow.... I could establish a rule stating that my kids will not watch TV without one or the other parent present... That is a rule upon the conduct of the child established authoritatively... As such it is a code of conduct (moral) by parents authority upon a child, relative to myself as a parent... And my authority over the child...

Morality only exists where there is a subject for it... A single individual being, with no other beings around it in existence, neither higher nor lower.... There is no morality... There's no subject for morality, and there's no authority to establish it except for the singular being upon itself..... now, this singular being creates lesser beings, and so possesses authority over them... Such new lesser-beings are subject to the authority of the singular greater being... morality is still, at the top, defined by the singular higher-being.... Though the lesser-beings may define morality upon themselves within such constraints allowed for by the higher-being... Each set of moral rules is relative to the subjects of those rules... When those lesser-beings bear little-lesser-beings, they have authority over them to establish moral rules within the constraints of their lesser-being society, and the constraints of the singular higher-being...

In the end, where there is no authority to establish morality, there is no morality... And since morality is relative to the authority which defines it.... morality is always a subjective construct... If you can prove to me that a moral can exist in a vacuum, then I'll believe it is objective... Since I know, but its very definition, that it cannot, I know the objective moralist is not thinking objectively... but merely relabeling his subjective moral construct as an false "objective truth"...