|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 8, 2007 12:18:51 GMT -4
I voted neither, so now I have to explain myself, which I will do until my boss answers my e-mail and I have to go back to real work.
First, I distinguish God from religion. So the integrity of deistic morals is not necessarily a religious question, at least in terms of religion as a group of like-minded believers. I say this because there are people who say, "I believe in God, but I don't believe in any religion nor desire to join or start one." I believe that is fundamentally a different motivation from those who belong to a church.
Second, I think morality exists aside from a belief in God, but I don't agree that such a severance establishes morality as objective. Which is to say, in the Christian tradition we have two great summaries of morality. The first is the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The second is Jesus' summary of Judaic law, the first tenet of which is to love God and the second is "to love your neighbor as yourself; on [this hangs] all the Law and the Prophets [i.e. the Jewish religious law]." Both of these set up a morality that is based on the universalization of subjective impressions. And so saith Kant, for example. Secular ethics is as firmly rooted in notions of subjectivity, in places, as religious teaching on the subject.
There are other formulations of ethics (e.g., natural law and natural rights) that purport at the outset to be objective and self-existing, not requiring having been granted by any edict or authority and thus "inalienable" from those they protect. But then when those rights are actually defined, they descend into squabbles. For example, ownership of property is considered an inalienable right, and therefore the acquisition and protection of property occupies a great deal of our attention.
And this is always interesting to me, because there are those who define "morality" as sexual behavior: the avoidance of animalistic instincts in favor of more civilized pursuits. And I've seen many people rail against sexual immorality only to undertake unscrupulous behavior in pursuit of the unfair acquisition and protection of wealth, the dangerous which have already been touched upon here. Many years ago I sat in a room in the Utah governor's mansion participating in a conversation among some of the well-known power brokers of my state. These were gentlemen who had been quite outspoken on certain conservative social views regarding marriage, sexual behavior, liberal social values, and so forth, expressive of the prevailing such views in the state. I was there as featured entertainment, and perhaps the conversants mistook my well-appointed clothing as a sign of financial stature. (However I had had previous dealings with two of them in a purely professional context.) In any case, the conversation centered largely around the real estate ventures in which they participated and the various means of leverage they had used to manipulate the deals toward their financial advantage, at the expense of lesser-endowed players who were unable to bring such means to bear.
Now I don't begrudge aggressive business practices. One of the parties to the conversation now holds a very visible and accountable position in the G.W. Bush administration and, as such, is subject to all manner of congressional oversight and disclosure requirements, as well as increased media attention. And there is now some question about his business activities which are not related to the conversation in question.
But my point is that while we can probably all agree on the "biggies" of moral behavior and their universality, before long the question of what strictly is moral and what isn't becomes subjective. For some the marginally honest accumulation of wealth is less moral than whom one sleeps with. And for others sexual behavior and its attendant social problems is paramount. We all define the Good Life differently, take different means to acquire it, and rely in different ways upon others to help us or avoid hindering us in the processes. That gives rise to natural disputes over what is moral or not, and God and religion -- while often invoked in the debate -- play a smaller role in those disputes than I think is generally realized.
Which is to say: without God there would still be morality. And without religion there would still be disputations over what is moral and what isn't.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 8, 2007 12:44:55 GMT -4
Again I might ask "what's the point in believing in a God that is unknowable and doesn't interact with the universe in any way?" Occam's razor would seem to say you might as well not believe in God in that case. So a religion that says you will actually gain points with God by blowing up children to forward your religious causes is no worse than a religion that says God would be horrified if you blew up children for any purpose? Begging the question "what is meant by omnipotence?" You say later that omnipotence cannot be open to interpretation but I think you're off-base there. Many theologians have argued over what omnipotence actually means. And how do you know that God is unknowable. If He really is unknowable, doesn't that mean you can't know that He's unknowable? Christianity does not say that God is loving but vengeful. It says that God is loving but just. There is a difference between justice and vengeance. And though He is just He is also merciful. And you know this how? What if the set of rules has a perfect judge to administer them? And is perfection a criteria for objectivity? So if one person in the universe thought the law of gravity was "wrong" that would make it subjective? If everyone in the universe thought 2+2=4 then it would still be subjective, because some person might come along who thought 2+2=5? The type of morality you are arguing for, 'bolt, where you "do the right thing because you might get caught and suffer if you do wrong" is no limit to someone who feels they have the ability to get away with it. People should do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because they fear punishment or are eager for reward.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 8, 2007 12:49:28 GMT -4
A nice answer, Jay, but the question wasn't whether morality would exist without God, but whether it can be defined as objective without God. That is, not subject to human opinion. You seem to be saying that morality is seperate from God, but also that there is no agreement on what is moral. Doesn't that mean that without the same belief in God morality is subjective?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 8, 2007 13:46:17 GMT -4
My answer was long.
I don't think morality can be defined as objective even with God, if by "morality" you mean all topics that have been historically discussed under that banner. And the essential elements of morality are objective only in the sense that they are universally held to some degree (e.g., the right to life): but interestingly enough, those derive from subjective points of view: I don't want to be killed, therefore killing is morally wrong.
Pressed to answer the intended question: I think morality is subjective in all cases. But my point was that the question, in my mind, was ill-defined: it brought in too many ideas to warrant simple answers. A belief in God in the Christian sense necessitates a belief that heavenly-dispensed moral guidelines are absolute and impervious to human opinion. Is that the answer you expected me to give?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 8, 2007 14:06:00 GMT -4
That is, not subject to human opinion.
Can you establish that the existence of God leads to a universally established moral standard that is free from human opinion? You seem to be saying that morality is seperate from God...
Not exactly. To believers in God, God is a source of moral authority. That is, people willingly subscribe to a deistic morality that is, for them, considered inviolable. And secular ethics includes such belief as a form of natural law. You can cite God as a moral authority without confessing a belief in God.
Morality per se is not separate from God, but it can exist in forms that are real and valuable to people without referring to God. And there are philosophical formalisms that establish them as universal propositions that have many of the effects of objective truth, albeit having been derived from the universalization of subjective principles.
Philosophers have been going on about this for more than 3,000 years. It's not an easily-resolved question. There may exist a universal truth that governs right behavior. Whether you want to call that God or not is a matter strictly of label. But the proper means for discovering the basis of right behavior is a much bigger can of worms that you give it credit for being.
...but also that there is no agreement on what is moral.
Doesn't that mean that without the same belief in God morality is subjective?
Not sure what you're asking. Two people who believe in God but belong to different religions will believe in two different formulations of deistic ethics. While they are very likely to agree on such basic principles as the sanctity of life, they may not agree, for example, on whether it is morally right to marry multiple spouses. Each points to an inviolable nugget of "God-breathed" truth that guides the individual belief, but that does not resolve the larger question of which is right and what God has to do about it. Or to make it more exciting: capital punishment. Some God-believers don't accept capital punishment at all as moral, while the Judeo-Christian lex talionis demands it.
A third party who does not believe in God or subscribe to any religion may still be able to formulate an ethical argument regarding capital punishment or polygamy, and such an argument would necessarily have to come from nuggets of axiomatic truth, which may well themselves derive from subjective constructs (i.e., I'm alive and want to remain alive, therefore my value as a person requires my behavior toward other persons that both offers and engenders their similar respect.). That would be a sense of morality without God involved.
Morality can derive from God, but it is not necessary to have God in order to have morality.
Since one's belief in God is different from someone else's belief in God, the morality thus derived is naturally subjective, no matter how objective you want it to be. And as belief diverges for whatever reason, the moral norms that follow naturally diverge and are subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 8, 2007 16:51:53 GMT -4
For the record, I don't always find much value in the objective/subjective distinction. There are distinctions that can be drawn at times, but I think the the dichotomy is a contrivance of philosophers that can muddy waters more than it clears them. It bothers me in this thread the implication that if morality is personal or unique to my situation in the world, then it must be held in lower regard.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 8, 2007 17:15:49 GMT -4
There are other formulations of ethics (e.g., natural law and natural rights) that purport at the outset to be objective and self-existing, not requiring having been granted by any edict or authority and thus "inalienable" from those they protect.
The notion of natural rights arose in those situations where it was time to justify to the king in a strongly-worded letter why his citizens did not have to be subject to his rule. Rights were traditionally thought of (and still are) as privileges granted to people from a higher authority. Kings claimed that their rights were granted by God himself. Those claiming to have natural rights pretty much argued the same: that their rights were conferred by nature or by God as well.
Debates on rights will probably forever be burdened by the folk view of rights as self-existing things in possession of either a government or of nature which one or the other grants you and thereby justifies your actions.
But then when those rights are actually defined, they descend into squabbles. For example, ownership of property is considered an inalienable right, and therefore the acquisition and protection of property occupies a great deal of our attention.
I'm not so sure the purpose was to objectify rights as much as it was to deny the king any special privileges and to justify a rebellion. As such, natural rights theory likely is inadequate to directly answer moral questions. In other words, I don't think that those who introduced the notions of natural rights were thinking that far ahead.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 8, 2007 17:46:54 GMT -4
Those claiming to have natural rights pretty much argued the same: that their rights were conferred by nature or by God as well.
The difference being that rights conferred by a monarch could be withdrawn at will by the monarch, while rights conferred by nature existed so long as one was part of nature: i.e., existed inalienably. Definitely a view defined by opposition instead of innovation.
Debates on rights will probably forever be burdened by the folk view of rights as self-existing things...
They are certainly burdened by the notion that a platonic nugget of beautific intelligence regarding right conduct can be made accessible.
As such, natural rights theory likely is inadequate to directly answer moral questions.
Which is why it didn't last very long into the 19th century, to be replaced by systems that were instead based on a disciplined introspection. The squabbles of natural laws/rights systems proved how unworkable the platonic ethic really was. All rights ended up being axiomatic anyway, no matter how eloquently their self-existence was argued. Hume leads that charge, if memory serves. "Nature" merely stands for "what I think." And that pretty much sums up every system of moral philosophy, including religion.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 8, 2007 18:54:13 GMT -4
That is, not subject to human opinion.Can you establish that the existence of God leads to a universally established moral standard that is free from human opinion? Not neccessarily, but the existence of God makes an objective morality possible. If God has objective existence, and He is omniscent and omnipotent, then He either can establish an objective standard of morality in the same way He established physical laws, or He can divine what the standard of morality actually is to a degree of perfection that human beings cannot. The existence of God therefore doesn't necessitate the existence of objective morality, but does make it possible. That seems a bit odd. If He doesn't exist then how can He be a moral authority? It's the universalization of the subjective principles that gets in the way. How can we be certain that they have objective truth if they are just universalized subjective principles? But if God does have objective existence, and if He matches the normal Christian conception of God, then His standard of morality is not subjective. It is instead a reflection of the objective truth.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 8, 2007 19:55:46 GMT -4
The existence of God therefore doesn't necessitate the existence of objective morality, but does make it possible.
Agreed.
If He doesn't exist then how can He be a moral authority?
Because he is seen as a moral authority by those who choose to believe in him even if he cannot be proved to exist. In ethics studies it's okay to say this.
How can we be certain that they have objective truth if they are just universalized subjective principles?
We can't. The presumption that an objective source of moral truth exists is the fallacy of the Enlightenment.
But if God does have objective existence, and if He matches the normal Christian conception of God, then His standard of morality is not subjective.
And because that line of reasoning remains conditional, it remains unobjective. Hence my question: can you prove it? No one can prove his God exists objectively and that the God's concept of morality exists observably without human interpretation. Therefore the conditional keeps failing and morality remains subjective even under color of religion.
Hence my conclusion: Religion exists; but it does not stop morality from being subjective. Belief in religion and in God is self-described as subjective (i.e., faith) therefore it cannot be used as a universal moral compass. And so removing God and religion doesn't make morality any more subjective than it already was.
But that's okay, if you're a moral philosopher. Moral philosophy allows Christians to cite their God and their beliefs about God as the basis for their morality.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 8, 2007 20:39:29 GMT -4
And because that line of reasoning remains conditional, it remains unobjective. Hence my question: can you prove it? Whether I can prove it or not should have no bearing on whehter it is objective or not. But the question presupposes the objective existence or nonexistence of God. It's all very well to say "but God and religion are subjective so they cannot effect the objectivity or lack thereof of morality" but you're not engaging the question then. If I ask you 'what's the best way to drive to Las Vegas" and you say "oh, it's best to fly - go buy a ticket from South West" then you had the best of intentions in helping me but you really didn't answer my question.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 8, 2007 20:49:23 GMT -4
I have two, hopefully simple, questions: (1) What do you mean by morality, and (2), what do you mean by subjective?
I take morality to mean something along the lines of answering the question "What should I do?" This is a question you ask yourself explicitly and implicitly every waking moment of the day. This definition of morality has wide scope. It applies to questions such as "Should I brush my teeth?" and "Should we put electric motors inside the Service Module's liquid oxygen tanks?" as well as "Should we put a person to death for murder?" The answers and the subsequent actions will have consequences. (I use "we" instead of "I" in my last two questions, but such questions have personal ramifications to some people.)
The question "What should I do?" implies that there is some end or objective to target. If your objective is to avoid the discomfort and expense of the dentist, then the question "Should I brush my teeth?" has a relatively straightforward answer--an answer, by the way, that will not necessarily be a personal opinion.
But in this thread, morality is spoken of as if it were a standalone or context-free quality of human actions, as if there was something intrinsically "moral" about brushing your teeth. (Consider that a person who has only dentures for teeth may answer differently.)
As for the objective/subjective distinction, in the first post, Jason characterized these as:
Objective: Reflects a reality beyond the observer. Subjective: A matter of perspective.
I cannot make either one fit my moral guideline to brush my teeth to avoid the discomfort and expense of the dentist. In the first case, it is both a matter of perspective, that is, my teeth, my life, my circumstances, my pocketbook, as well as a reflection of a reality beyond the observer, not in a literal sense, but in the sense that the way the world works will dictate the consequences of my actions.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 8, 2007 20:56:38 GMT -4
Hey, this all became very interesting while I was off wasting my time commenting on YouTube videos. I’m sorry I haven’t contributed. I was about to chime in with something along the lines of “morality from God can no more be shown to be correct to the same extent that God can be shown to exist,” but Jay beat me to it and said it with much more clarity.
Belief in God is subjective and morals derived from God are subjective, unless you can prove the existence of that particular God.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 8, 2007 21:16:04 GMT -4
Whether I can prove it or not should have no bearing on whehter it is objective or not.
The question was designed to remind you that religion is by definition a subjective experience. You may believe with all your heart that God exists whether anyone believes in him or not, but ultimately why does that matter beyond yourself?
...you're not engaging the question then.
Where have you been? I've not been engaging the question since the beginning! My point is precisely that the question is poorly formulated.
...then you had the best of intentions in helping me but you really didn't answer my question.
That's because you didn't specify "best." To you the best way might be the cheapest. To me the best way might be the fastest. That's a big part of the point. In studying moral philosophy there's no way to avoid interpretation, even if you bring in religion -- which moral philosophy happily does anyway. So the question becomes one not of wishing for an elusive objective truth that will never plop into our laps, but of figuring out whether there's something to all that subjectivity.
That religious people believe fervently that the God they worship is a source of objective moral truth doesn't make it so for anyone else. Thus it doesn't matter, and doesn't make it independent of personal interpretation. And that matters, because moral philosophy is mostly about how we interact with others.
You can say that there could hypothetically exist some platonic religious condition that allows everyone to know exactly that God exists and that he has an unmistakable moral code for us to follow. But if you're going to invent platonic conditions, then skip God and just invent a platonic moral code that is similarly self-evident.
If the existence of God enables only the possibility of a moral absolute, and the purposeful subjective formulation of belief in God does not achieve anything close to a moral absolute and never has and never will by design, then removing God from the equation really doesn't change anything.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 8, 2007 22:11:04 GMT -4
Quote:They all have different ideas on morality. None are better or worse than any of the other ones. So a religion that says you will actually gain points with God by blowing up children to forward your religious causes is no worse than a religion that says God would be horrified if you blew up children for any purpose?
024: And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor. 025: And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. 026: And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day.
Yeah, the OT God was a nice guy too. Stoning and burning a family - kids and all- plus their livestock. It is in passages like this that clues you in that the OT God is not really God at all. Maybe someone can justify his actions? In context, what Achan had done was hide some of the 'Lord's Treasure' in his tent. Is this divine justice? Or mythology?
|
|