August 14, 2007
Objective Morality
I hadn’t really come across the argument from morality much before - at least not enough to seriously think about it. I’d heard people ask “if you don’t believe in God, then where do your morals come from?”, but rather than answer the question (I’d say honestly “I don’t know”), I’d retort with the observation that Christians “pick and choose” their morals from the bible, and clearly their morals come from the same place as mine - and it’s not the bible (an idea I’d always had, but one that Dawkins helped me articulate).
For those not familiar with the argument from morality, it basically goes like this1:
-
If God does not exist, then there are no objective (i.e. independent of human opinion) moral values and duties.
-
There are objective moral values and duties.
-
Therefore God exists.
My gut instinct when I first thought about this argument is that the first point has issues. I’ve asserted before that we can have morality without religion2, and I still believe that a moral code independent of religion is superior, but as for where this morality could come from - I have no idea. I seem to remember Dawkins talking about how morality could have evolved, but that wouldn’t be objective morality, would it?
Which as got me thinking about the idea of objective morality as a whole, and I can’t help but ask - do we really have objective morality (point 2)? Zach Moore says that, at least at a debate lecture he attended, the idea the objective morality exists seems to be generally accepted, but I can’t help but feel that there’s something wrong with that, too.
What morals do we have that are objective? “Murder is bad” - Surely there’s some times it’s justified3? “Do no harm” - but what if my survival is at stake? “Do the greatest Good” - but, what IS good? Even the golden rule isn’t objective (although the rule itself seems to be the most universal law of morality) - “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” relies on our own opinions! Perhaps I really wouldn’t care if you stole my girlfriend?4
Do we really have objective morals? If so, what?
[
Posts
Zachary Moore said,
August 14, 2007 at 12:27 am
Just to clarify- I was at an invited lecture of Dr. Craig’s, not a debate.
Richard said,
August 14, 2007 at 12:30 am
Oops, my mistake!
The Barefoot Bum said,
August 14, 2007 at 12:58 am
I cover this topic in my series on meta-ethical subjective relativism. There are some serious problems with meta-ethical objectivism.
The epistemic problem: Since all interesting ethical statements are about physically plausible choices (it’s trivial and uninterested that we “ought” to accelerate towards the surface of the Earth at ~10m/s²), the scientific process of inferring universals from consistent behavior is inapplicable.
The ontological problem: What sort of “thing” would an objective moral property be? In physics, a property must be conserved, or reducible to a conserved property. What sort of conservation law (or symmetry) would an objective ethical property reduce to?
The emotional problem: If there really were an objective ethical property, it would, by definition, be true regardless of what anyone, or even everyone believes: It’s possible to be mistaken about objective truth, and it’s possible for everone to be mistaken. That means it’s at least possibly the case that there’s an objective ethical truth that would make everyone unhappy. This idea is fine for Christians—after all, the deep sexual repression does in fact make almost everyone unhappy—but it’s a problem for those of us who value others’ subjective states, e.g. the Humanist value of subjective happiness itself.
kumarei said,
August 14, 2007 at 1:00 am
There is no such thing as objective morality. It’s a concept that theists made up, and then justified with the arguments “Well, don’t people all over the world come up with these things?” and “If there isn’t objective morality, how do we have any morals?” (I’m probably going to aggravate some people here, but I think it’s a bit like Universal Grammar)
Well, let’s answer the second question first. The will to help others comes from evolution. As Dawkins has explained so well in the past, evolution is concerned with the survival of the species, of the survival of the “selfish gene”, rather than any need for survival on a personal level. When looked at this way, it’s easy to see how selflessness can be beneficial: the mother sacrificing herself to save her children, or, for walking sticks, the father being eaten to give the mother sustenance. But, while there’s likely a gene for selflessness, I don’t think that all of morality is hard coded into us. This is because there has been evidence of societies who hold vastly different morals than us.
How do societies come up with such similar rules, then? Simple. People are concerned with others, so our genes give us empathy, and everything else can follow from that. Why do we care about murder? Because we can imagine ourselves being murdered. So morality is a function of empathy.
Even if it weren’t, though, I think that you can gain morality through the philosophical and scientific view.
1) I am important. (Assume the opposite, you aren’t important in any way, so you might as well just not do anything. That’s entirely pointless, so we might as well accept that we’re important, if only to ourselves)
2) Others exist. (All scientific evidence points to this being true)
3) Others are similar to me. (This can be learned through genetics and observation)
4) Therefore, others have some import. (A combination of 1 and 3)
5) Others want similar things to me. (Life, sustenance and shelter are constant needs, see 3)
6) Because of 4 and 5, we should do nothing to actively deprive others of their needs unless it would deprive us of ours.
Even if you don’t accept any argument but one, acting morally can be a selfish act. Acting morally (which I define as upholding part 6, or following the golden rule) can be protection, as if you act immorally to someone else, they are more likely to act immorally to you in retribution.
Even if everything I’ve said is false, though, the argument from morality still stinks of god of the gaps. “We don’t know how this works quite yet, so God (or a wizard, or an extra-terrestrial) did it.” This is not a valid argument, because we haven’t yet discovered all the workings of the human mind. If, once we have a comprehensive view of the mind’s workings, we cannot explain morality in the least (unlikely since we can explain most of it now), then this might be a somewhat reasonable argument to make. We don’t know everything we can, though, so the argument from morality doesn’t really give any evidence of God, just evidence of some things we need to scientifically investigate more.
rivalarrival said,
August 14, 2007 at 9:39 am
I wrote an article recently about the fallacy of the Golden Rule.
Basically, as you said, people have differing desires. To achieve the aims of the Golden Rule (reciprocity) communication of those desires is absolutely essential.
But I digress…
The closest we have to a truly objective morality is demonstrated by the moral codes we enforce universally. The laws we apply to all people. And I’m not speaking solely of legislation, but also of, (for lack of a better word) expectations. Like the expectation that we’re not going to worry about monetary or environmental concerns when there are men trapped in a coal mine.
Of course, those “laws” are a reflection of the subjective morality of a society. “Objective” morality is the consensus of Subjective morality.
Richard said,
August 14, 2007 at 11:36 am
@ RivalArival
I suppose I should have mentioned that in my post, but I totally agree with you. I realise that, today, we do have certain “universal” moral codes, but these codes were certainly different to those that might have existed, say, 100, 1,000, or 30,000 years ago! Therefore, they can’t be objective.
Richard said,
August 14, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I thought it seemed weird that there would be some almost-universal agreement that objective morality exists. Perhaps it’s just the readership of my blog, but we’re 3-0 so far!
@ kumarei
As always, I think you make some interesting points. I like the 6-point argument for morality - of course, it boils down the golden rule (which, as I’ve stated - can’t be objective).
I suppose I’m wondering if we did have objective morality, would it be possible for it to have come from another source? (i.e. can you argue against point #1 in my post). I think it’s clear to me now (and, as I was writing the post), that objective morality doesn’t exist - I suppose it’s just interesting that my first instinct was to attack the proposal that we can’t have objective morality without God (#1), rather than attacking the idea that we have objective morality (#2).
@ Barefoot Bum
I’ll check out your post - certainly some different ways of looking at things.
It seems that all the problems with objective morality you mention give even more argument to the theists, if we accept objective morality as a given (which, I think has been established, is not the case… not on this blog, anyway!). What kind of “thing” is objective morality? Simple - god’s rules for us. It’s possible that we’re mistaken about what this morality dictates? Simple - that’s what we’ve got the bible for.
John Englezos said,
August 14, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Hi Richard,
Been reading back along your blogs, but I might respond to them in reverse order. For starters, are you saying that someone should “steal your girlfriend” in order to see if it does indeed evoke an objective moral response?
Coming to the idea of morality as a Christian who takes my faith seriously, I reckon Jesus summed it up best, not with the ethic of reciprocity (aka. Golden Rule) which many people hold up as the highest moral to seek, but that was never the moral Jesus expounded as the highest and most importance.
If I may you a quote:
“One of them [a pharisee], an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Matthew 22: 35 - 40
If you ask most Christians what is the greatest command given, without fail they won’t refer to the golden rule, they’ll refer to this passage (or the parralel passage in Mark 12) as the moral laid out by Jesus Christ.
I think while all of Jesus’ teachings are “morally objective” (I’d encourage you to re-read them), the simple fact of the matter is that God is objective, impartial AND relational. This law has everything to do with Him as well as us.
Why? Because I believe true morality begins with God’s Love, God’s Will, and God’s desire for His creation, most notably, humanity.
Making humankind to be a reflection of Himself, He hasn’t just left us alone in this physical realm, but openly interacts and relates to us as a LOVING God.
The moral Jesus places down is simply summing up God’s intention for humanity (individual and collective)
And it shows a few things:
That as humans, we were not just created and left to “survive”, as individuals or a group. Rather, to actively pursue a deep and intimate relationship with our Maker, Sustainer and Redeemer. Our heart and mind and soul and physical makeup SCREAM this point. That if we were to use all of ourselves (everything in us that was available to us) for a purpose that would be deemed “good”, it would be to love God, to grow in that love and knowledge of Him. So that in turn we could see things the Way He does, and feel things the way He does, and know Him the way He knows us (that is, through and through), and do things as He would do them.
Jesus’ greatest commandment, or life moral if you’d prefer, is an imperative that speaks not of individual survival, but of PURPOSE and IDENTITY and RELATIONSHIP.
The second commandment Jesus gives speaks of interaction and relationship to each other as humans. Check out the choice of the word “love” Jesus uses.(in Hebrew there’s at least 3 words for “love”, in the greek there’s 4). It is not selfish love, or sexual love, but “agape” love, or “God-love”, the love that goes beyond simply responding to some need. It is a love that just gives. It is a love that is not dependant on a response. It’s a love that is given to the unworthy and undeserving and unthankful.
Reciprocity is not even part of the equation according to Jesus. In fact, it answers the question of mankind’s search for identity and purpose, and IF we could even begin to obey these morals, you would start to see the end of all those things that people the world over consider “morally wrong”. If you loved your neighbour, you wouldn’t wish them harm, or do them harm, there would be no rape, no murder, no malice, no gossiping, no slander, no lying, no selfish pride for that matter.
That plus you wouldn’t steal their girlfriend either!! =^)
So if you don’t mind me correcting you on that point Richard, this “universal” objective moral code, has been articulated (by Jesus) and documented (by His followers) for close to 2000 years, and it is simply summing up everything that God was saying and displaying beforehand anyhow.
P.S. And He still shows His love. And the moral code that He would have us live by is still there and as objective as ever.
J =^)
Richard said,
August 14, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Hey John, good to see you here!
Firstly, the girlfriend example was one in a line of examples to suggest that, even the “rules” we think are absolute (and therefore objective) aren’t, in fact. While I certainly don’t want you to kill me, steal my girlfriend, or any of those things, I’d still argue that there might be circumstances in which these acts could be considered moral (obviously exceptional circumstances, but circumstances none the less).
Also, I don’t deny that the golden rule is a good moral ideal, but that still doesn’t make it objective. An objective morality cannot rely on our own opinions, and the golden rule specifically relies on what we believe to be moral. You and I, perhaps, might both agree that suicide (ignoring euthanasia for the moment) is often (if not always) an act which can cause harm to family and friends, and is thus immoral. Other societies, as an example, see suicide (under the right circumstances) as a courageous act (e.g. martyrdom) or as the only “moral” way to regain your honour after some disgraceful act. I’m not saying that I (or you) should agree with these moral codes, but they certainly exist, and they can be justified using the golden rule.
The Barefoot Bum said,
August 14, 2007 at 2:04 pm
It’s logically possible that Divine Command Theory might give us a universal ethic, but it is the state of mind of a personal God, and therefore subjective. See Euthyphro.
The problem is that if there were a god, and id did have divine commands, he’s so completely shy about communicating them that they are completely indistinguishable from people making up ethics as they go along, as an interaction between their inner nature and their physical, cultural and social environment.
The purpose, identity and relationship of specifically Christian and Islamic ethics is the relationship of slavery. If you like being a slave, that’s your problem, but I’m a free person.
Richard said,
August 14, 2007 at 2:42 pm
@ Barefoot Bum
Can’t disagree with that!
I had a quick look at the Euthyphro link, but I find Plato quite tiresome to read. I made it through “The Republic” once, but it was certainly painful! I’ll have another look at it when I’m not supposed to be studying!
The Barefoot Bum said,
August 14, 2007 at 11:58 pm
It’s short and to the point. More importantly, it’s one of Plato’s few arguments that have stood the test of time.
To sum up: If ethics come from or via the gods (or, by extension, a monotheistic God), then ethics must be a subjective property of the gods, or the gods must be bound by an objective ethics. The latter is a logical contradiction, since a god, by definition, cannot be bound.
David said,
September 5, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Hey man, I stumbled across your site, while doing some research. Interesting post. You seem like a nice guy, and I am interested in philosophy etc. also. I have my own opinions on objective morality, and was wondering if you would like to do an email exchange/discussion on the issue? My email is dragonfish09@gmail.com, just drop me a line eh?