Why Must Morality Be Objective?

[rookiebatman]

I watch a lot of debates between theists and atheists, and one point that comes up a lot (especially by William Lane Craig, who unfortunately has done a lot of debates) is the Argument from Morality, that without God, we couldn't have an objective sense of morality. The thing that I don't get is, they act like saying "if atheists are right, then morality would only be subjective" somehow proves their point. It seems to me that theists are presupposing that morality is objective, and so they would conclude that any system which indicates subjective morality must therefore be false. But why? Where's the support for the initial premise that morality is objective? Not that it should be, or that the world would be better if it was, but that objective morality is a known and accepted fact, which means that any line of thought which leads to subjective morality must be false.

Also, as a preemptive follow-up question, if you believe that morality is objective, how do you rectify that with the observable fact that people can't agree on what that objective morality is? Even people who say that the Bible is the objective source for morality can't agree on interpretations and nuances and what parts of the Old Testament should still be followed or not.

[wiploc]

All you have to do is catch them at it. Notice when they surreptitiously two-step from one meaning to the other, and hold that up to the light.

To get them to do it, all you have to say is, "My morality is just as objective as yours." Then they have to provide a test that makes yours subjective. Then you apply that same test to their morality, and discover that theirs is subjective too. So they provide another test that makes theirs objective, and you apply that test to discover that yours is objective too.

Make it obvious to everyone that they're cheating. (Generally speaking, this will surprise your debate opponent as much as anyone else. WLC aside, the equivocation is usually done instinctively and unconsciously.)

Even though I wholeheartedly disagree with the Argument from Morality, I'm unclear on how this hurts the point. My understanding of the argument is that they claim everybody has objective morality printed on their hearts by God, and so if the atheist says that their morality is objective, that would actually help the theist's argument. What am I missing?

If you think that would help their argument, I'm guessing that's because you've heard them say that we can't have objective morality without god. And you believe it. But they can never defend that claim when it's challenged. There is no sense in which god-based morality is objective and godless morality is subjective.

It all depends on what is meant by "objective," of course, but for any single meaning, either both moralities are objective, or both moralities are subjective.

The apologist's job is to hide that fact by surreptitiously switching back and forth between meanings. Your job is to catch her at it.

[rookiebatman]

If you think that would help their argument, I'm guessing that's because you've heard them say that we can't have objective morality without god. And you believe it.

I don't necessarily have to believe it. If they made that claim, I would point out that morality is clearly not objective, because even all the people who claim that objective morality exists can't agree on what it is.

It all depends on what is meant by "objective," of course, but for any single meaning, either both moralities are objective, or both moralities are subjective.

How do you define objective morality?

[wiploc]

If you think that would help their argument, I'm guessing that's because you've heard them say that we can't have objective morality without god. And you believe it.

I don't necessarily have to believe it. If they made that claim, I would point out that morality is clearly not objective, because even all the people who claim that objective morality exists can't agree on what it is.

If morality was only only true if people agreed on it, wouldn't that make it subjective rather than objective?

Or imagine a secret morality. This morality is true, but nobody knows what it is. Or maybe only god knows what it is. There's nothing logically impossible about that. And the theists are likely to argue some version of this.

It all depends on what is meant by "objective," of course, but for any single meaning, either both moralities are objective, or both moralities are subjective.

How do you define objective morality?

I try not to define it. I let whoever I'm talking to do the defining. Then I just hold them to that definition. If I hold them to a single definition, then the argument from morality fails.

If I did offer a definition, they'd just say, "That's not what I'm talking about. Don't put words in my mouth." I can't refute their argument unless I use their definition.

Generally speaking, though, I think of it as a weasel word, a pivot point, an equivocation, a sleight of mouth.

But, once I'm good and set in that expectation, the next person I talk to will be a philosophy major who has a legitimate definition and no intention of equivocating.

So my job is just to pay attention, and adopt whatever meaning is used by the person I'm talking to---and to be alert for that meaning to change.

[rookiebatman]

If morality was only only true if people agreed on it, wouldn't that make it subjective rather than objective?

Not if God imprinted it on our hearts.

Or imagine a secret morality. This morality is true, but nobody knows what it is. Or maybe only god knows what it is. There's nothing logically impossible about that. And the theists are likely to argue some version of this.

I agree that's not logically impossible, but it does seem to me entirely impractical. But I don't agree that's what theists are likely to argue, at least not in the debates I've watched. I feel like the argument is more along the lines that everybody agrees about morality (except those dirty heathen atheists, who obviously just become atheists so they can make up their own morals which involve lots of sex probably), so that consistent objective standard of morality must have come from somewhere outside of humanity. To reduce it to absurdity, the essential core of the Moral Argument as I've heard it is, "we all agree murder and rape are bad, so God must be real!"

Somebody in my thread on whether God punishes rationality post this link to an essay by *gasp* William Lane Craig. Of course, he doesn't speak for all Christians, but since there aren't any coming onto this thread clarifying what theists actually believe about these points, I feel like one theist viewpoint is better than none.

On the subject of objective morality, Craig says:

To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.

That, in itself, could certainly including the secret objective morality you mentioned. But he then goes on to say,

"And the claim is that in the absence of God, moral values are not objective in this sense."
...
"Rather the question is: "If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?" Like Mackie and Ruse, I don't see any reason to think that in the absence of God, human morality is objective."

(And even his final statement of the argument in syllogistic form includes the statement, "If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist."

So, while he never uses the exact phrase, "imprinted on our hearts by God," he clearly is claiming that objective morality could only have come from God. Now, the question that started this thread is perfectly exemplified in one other statement he makes:

But the problem is that objective values do exist, and deep down we all know it. There's no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world.

This is the contention that I started the thread for the purpose of giving theists a chance to clarify. How can he saw that we all know objective values do exist? He can even go further and say "there's no reason to deny" it? There are perfectly good reasons to deny it. There's the fact that even those who believe objective morality was given to us by God can't agree on what that objective morality is, and the fact we can all observe, that children do not have any morality at all until it is taught to them. So that's the contention that I wanted theists to deal with.

[wiploc]

If morality was only only true if people agreed on it, wouldn't that make it subjective rather than objective?

Not if God imprinted it on our hearts.

That wouldn't affect objectivity. Suppose my neighbor kid, little Timmy (entirely fictional, by the way) went around hypnotizing or brainwashing everybody so they agreed with his theory that strangers ought to give children candy. How would that make that morality objective?

Or imagine a secret morality. This morality is true, but nobody knows what it is. Or maybe only god knows what it is. There's nothing logically impossible about that. And the theists are likely to argue some version of this.

I agree that's not logically impossible, but it does seem to me entirely impractical.

Hmm. When we're talking about morality constructed entirely by invisible magic-throwing eccentrics, I'm not sure what practicality has to do with that.

But I don't agree that's what theists are likely to argue, at least not in the debates I've watched.

Consider it hyperbole then. To the extent that you don't agree with the ten commandments (or whatever), that must be because of your separation from god. He hasn't confided in you because you are not worthy. You don't understand the one true morality, but it still exists. You don't know what you're supposed to do, but you're still supposed to do it.

Get right with god, and you'll know how to behave.

They have to have this element in their argument, to cover the fact that not everybody agrees about morality.

I feel like the argument is more along the lines that everybody agrees about morality (except those dirty heathen atheists, who obviously just become atheists so they can make up their own morals which involve lots of sex probably),

Yes, they play it both ways. To the extent that we agree, that's supposed to prove a universal objective standard. To the extent that we disagree, that's supposed to prove that we're out of touch with that standard.

We could use the same facts to argue the opposite: To the extent that we disagree, that proves there is no universal objective standard. To the extent that some of us agree, that proves that morality is inter-subjective.

It's at least as good as the theists' argument.

so that consistent objective standard of morality must have come from somewhere outside of humanity.

That part I don't get at all. Why can't Mills' Utilitarianism be the consistent standard? Why can't little Timmy be the source of objective morality? The claim that morality has to come from outside humanity is arbitrary and self-serving. If a personal god is a person, why don't we include him in the in-group, and say an objective morality can't come from a person?

And none of that---where something comes from---has anything to do with any definition of objective that I know of. Is the three-feet-to-the-yard rule subjective because it wasn't made by a god?

Look at each of your words, "consistent," "objective," "standard," and "morality." Is there anything in any of them that requires a source outside of humanity? No, there's not.

To reduce it to absurdity, the essential core of the Moral Argument as I've heard it is, "we all agree murder and rape are bad, so God must be real!"

The brilliance of this move is that it sometimes tricks our team into taking the other side. We try to explain how those rules aren't really "objective," and the theist gets to point at the atheist and say, "See! Atheists are evil! For an atheist, any behavior is as good as any other!"

The proper response for us, then, is to say, "My morality is every bit as objective as yours." Then they have to field a rule, a test for distinguishing the objective from the subjective.

You can always make this bite them in the ass, because there is no such rule that makes their morality objective while making our morality subjective.

Somebody in my thread on whether God punishes rationality post this link to an essay by *gasp* William Lane Craig. Of course, he doesn't speak for all Christians, but since there aren't any coming onto this thread clarifying what theists actually believe about these points, I feel like one theist viewpoint is better than none.

On the subject of objective morality, Craig says:

To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.

That, in itself, could certainly including the secret objective morality you mentioned. But he then goes on to say,

"And the claim is that in the absence of God, moral values are not objective in this sense."
...

This claim cannot be defended, not if morality is objective in the presence of god.

"Rather the question is: "If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?" Like Mackie and Ruse, I don't see any reason to think that in the absence of God, human morality is objective."

I love it when he tries to inspire us to want to be moral like him by pretending to be a moral Cretin. He says things like, "I, personally, have nothing against rape," except that he's been ordered not to do it by an invisible eccentric.

(And even his final statement of the argument in syllogistic form includes the statement, "If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist."

He says that because we have such a tendency to screw up in response. What we need to do is ask him how he justifies that claim. What rule or test makes god-made morality objective and atheist morality subjective? That's the obvious follow-up question, but we don't ask it.

There is no such test.

Suppose the test is that the rule has to apply to everybody equally. Little Timmy can do that: "Every stranger must give candy to every child." Duck soup. You don't need a god for that. Or for any other answer the theists attempt.

So, while he never uses the exact phrase, "imprinted on our hearts by God," he clearly is claiming that objective morality could only have come from God.

Sure he does, but he cannot defend that claim if challenged.

Now, the question that started this thread is perfectly exemplified in one other statement he makes:

But the problem is that objective values do exist, and deep down we all know it. There's no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world.

This is the contention that I started the thread for the purpose of giving theists a chance to clarify.

If they clarified, they'd be embarrassed. The moral argument depends entirely on equivocation. Clarification would destroy its plausibility.

How can he saw that we all know objective values do exist?

My example? I think the Central Park wilding was wrong. They shouldn't have done that.* It was really, actually, meaningfully wrong. It ought not to have been done. This isn't just my personal whim. It was really wrong.

Now, you have things you feel that way about too, right? And WLC wants to conflate your moral realism, which most people haven't heard of, with moral objectivity, which is an easy term to use for equivocation.

As long as he can sell objective morality as how you reallly ought to behave, and subjective morality as a personal whim, then he'll keep using that line of argument.

He can even go further and say "there's no reason to deny" it? There are perfectly good reasons to deny it.

If you deny objective morality, you're playing into his hands. You are letting him dismiss atheists as monsters.

There's the fact that even those who believe objective morality was given to us by God can't agree on what that objective morality is,

That's not the test of objectivity. Having to agree on something would make it more like subjective.

and the fact we can all observe, that children do not have any morality at all until it is taught to them. So that's the contention that I wanted theists to deal with.

I hope one shows up.





*The actual rapists. The rapists shouldn't have done what they did, and the police shouldn't have done what they did.

[rookiebatman]

Hmm. When we're talking about morality constructed entirely by invisible magic-throwing eccentrics, I'm not sure what practicality has to do with that.

I mean in terms of practical application. If there's objective morality, but no one knows what it is, then no one could follow it.

Yes, they play it both ways. To the extent that we agree, that's supposed to prove a universal objective standard. To the extent that we disagree, that's supposed to prove that we're out of touch with that standard.

It's kinda like how they play it both ways with the Argument from Design. If you point out something that seems like a really nice, advanced design, that's evidence of God. But if we point out something that's evidence of things being far from perfect in the world, that's evidence of the Fall or the curse of original sin. How convenient.

We could use the same facts to argue the opposite: To the extent that we disagree, that proves there is no universal objective standard. To the extent that some of us agree, that proves that morality is inter-subjective.

It's at least as good as the theists' argument.

And then all that's left is to invoke Occam's Razor, that if there's a perfectly reasonable explanation without God, there's no need to add in an invisible supernatural being to explain something that's already explained. Of course, that makes sense to us, but it doesn't work as well when you tell a theist, because they've been conditioned to presuppose the existence of God as a basic assumption, so they can't even see anymore how there's a leap being taken.

That part I don't get at all. Why can't Mills' Utilitarianism be the consistent standard? Why can't little Timmy be the source of objective morality? The claim that morality has to come from outside humanity is arbitrary and self-serving.

No arguments there.

And none of that---where something comes from---has anything to do with any definition of objective that I know of. Is the three-feet-to-the-yard rule subjective because it wasn't made by a god?

There are some who might argue that even that was imprinted on our hearts by God. It's essentially the Transcendental Argument, that any logic or reasoning or understanding at all must necessarily come from God (of course, that's nonsensical assumption, but I did just want to note that some people might make such a claim).

The brilliance of this move is that it sometimes tricks our team into taking the other side. We try to explain how those rules aren't really "objective," and the theist gets to point at the atheist and say, "See! Atheists are evil! For an atheist, any behavior is as good as any other!"

Makes you wonder why they need to resort to such trickery if their position really is true, don't it?

The proper response for us, then, is to say, "My morality is every bit as objective as yours." Then they have to field a rule, a test for distinguishing the objective from the subjective.

Interesting, but I think if I tried that with the kind of people I would get into this type of discussion with, they'd probably just give me an incredulous look and flatly deny my claim out of hand. Again, it's the same thing as the Occam's Razor point I made above; they're just used to thinking of God as a presupposition, so they no longer even think of it in terms of needing to be proved. Things like God, objective morality, free will, etc., are default settings for them, so the concept of needing to support those premises is foreign to them. At least, that's been my personal experience.

To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.

That, in itself, could certainly including the secret objective morality you mentioned. But he then goes on to say,

"And the claim is that in the absence of God, moral values are not objective in this sense."

This claim cannot be defended, not if morality is objective in the presence of god.

Can you elaborate further?

I love it when he tries to inspire us to want to be moral like him by pretending to be a moral Cretin. He says things like, "I, personally, have nothing against rape," except that he's been ordered not to do it by an invisible eccentric.

Yeah, good point. I had a friend who flat-out said the only reason he does any good things is because he wants to make Jesus happy (or show his love/obedience for Jesus, however he might've phrased it). I feel like, if that's the case, and I'm doing good things because I'm just trying to be a moral person, then I'm actually more moral than that guy.

He says that because we have such a tendency to screw up in response. What we need to do is ask him how he justifies that claim. What rule or test makes god-made morality objective and atheist morality subjective? That's the obvious follow-up question, but we don't ask it.

I think what they would probably say is, the fact that it allegedly comes from a source "higher" than humanity, and who is not only transcendent but also the creator (which apparently gives him the authority to make all the rules) is how that's defined as objective while anything that comes from within humanity is subjective.

So, while he never uses the exact phrase, "imprinted on our hearts by God," he clearly is claiming that objective morality could only have come from God.

Sure he does, but he cannot defend that claim if challenged.

That's how I feel about it, and part of the reason I started this thread. I was hoping some theists would come on here and explain how that would work, but none of them have.

If they clarified, they'd be embarrassed. The moral argument depends entirely on equivocation. Clarification would destroy its plausibility.

...Not that you could ever get any of them to admit it.

As long as he can sell objective morality as how you reallly ought to behave, and subjective morality as a personal whim, then he'll keep using that line of argument.

I just really wonder sometimes whether Craig actually believes it himself (because it's entirely possible, even commonplace, for the brain to essentially trick itself into believing its own lies) or whether he knows it's all rhetorical nonsense that will fool the simple-minded masses, and he just thinks it's okay to "lie for God."

If you deny objective morality, you're playing into his hands. You are letting him dismiss atheists as monsters.

I don't agree with that. He's already said it's possible for atheists to be good, moral people (in a section I didn't quote), so if he says, "subjective morality means you automatically have no problem with rape and murder," then he's contradicting himself. I don't believe in objective morality. I'm not gonna equivocate on that just to win an argument; if I did, I'd be no better than him.

I mean, I could do it in an illustrative fashion, like saying "if I write down some rules on this piece of paper and claim that my Lord Zenu said they are the objective standard of morality imprinted on everyone's hearts, would that make it true?" But I wouldn't equivocate on the fact that I don't believe in objective morality myself.

That's not the test of objectivity. Having to agree on something would make it more like subjective.

In general, that would be true, but when you're dealing with the claim that God imprinted objective morality on our hearts, coupled with the claim that all people of true faith have the Holy Spirit guiding them into a better understanding of God, then it doesn't make sense within that framework to say that none of those people who have the Holy Spirit and objective morality in their hearts can agree on what it is.

[wiploc]

It's kinda like how they play it both ways with the Argument from Design. If you point out something that seems like a really nice, advanced design, that's evidence of God. But if we point out something that's evidence of things being far from perfect in the world, that's evidence of the Fall or the curse of original sin. How convenient.

Good point.


Off Topic, a netiquette suggestion: I'd like you to click the quote button on this post, and on your own post, the one I'm responding to here. Compare them for readability.

Yours is harder to respond to, because it's a struggle to locate the text that provoked the response.

Mine is easier, because I put blanklines around the new material that I'm inserting. You can see at a glance what is mine and what is yours. I generally put one blankline at the top of any new material, and three blanklines at the bottom.

This not only makes it convenient for you to read, it helps a ton when I go back to edit my mistakes.

There are some who might argue that even that [the rule that there are three feet to a yard] was imprinted on our hearts by God.

But that's hardly what makes it objective. (For some value of "objective.")

Makes you wonder why they need to resort to such trickery if their position really is true, don't it?

I'll recommend a book: Dave Barry Is Not Making This Up. The essay is about flying saucers, and it is the only explanation of the phenomenon that ever made sense to me: People lie to spread the truth. If someone is convinced that flying saucers are real, and she wants more people to know that they're real, then she may fake evidence in order to accomplish that.

A magazine article is relevant too: There was an international convention of crop circle makers. Since they pretty much all showed up, it became impossible to deny that the crop circles were man-made. So they began to discuss what it was that forced them to make the crop circles. Gods, alien rays, lay lines, cosmic energies?

Oh, the Dave Barry book contains much else that's great.

The proper response for us, then, is to say, "My morality is every bit as objective as yours." Then they have to field a rule, a test for distinguishing the objective from the subjective.

Interesting, but I think if I tried that with the kind of people I would get into this type of discussion with, they'd probably just give me an incredulous look and flatly deny my claim out of hand.

Then you say, "Oh, okay. What makes your morality objective? Tell me how to identify an objective morality."

When they do that, apply their test to atheist morality. You'll find that it is also objective (by that standard).

Then they'll introduce another standard, in order to show that your morality is not objective. And then you apply that standard to their morality, and discover, to your surprise, that theirs isn't objective either.

The conversation has this rythm:

Her: "My car is better than yours, because mine has a white roof."
You: "Mine has a white roof too, so it's equally good."
Her: "Oh, but yours is inferior. It has a blue body."
You: "Yours has a blue body too, so it's just as bad."
Her: "No, no, mine has a white roof."

Let the audience (if any) see that she's two-stepping (equivocating). Remember that you can't bring her around in one session. Let her perceive that that something's gone wrong, that her argument isn't working as well as she expected. That may plant a seed, which is all you can do for her.



I've run out of time. I may write more later.

[rookiebatman]

Then you say, "Oh, okay. What makes your morality objective? Tell me how to identify an objective morality."

When they do that, apply their test to atheist morality. You'll find that it is also objective (by that standard).

If I said that, I assume their response would probably be, "The Bible." So that can't really be applied to atheist morality, because no system of atheist morality would be "The Bible." Of course, I could start tossing out questions about "Old Testament or New Testament," "what about heinous things like slavery that are absolutely condoned in the New Testament?" and so forth, but then it would just devolve into a discussion about how to interpret the Bible. That would essentially prove my point about their objective morality not being objectively knowable, but in such a way that the point itself would be forgotten.

[wiploc]

Then you say, "Oh, okay. What makes your morality objective? Tell me how to identify an objective morality."

When they do that, apply their test to atheist morality. You'll find that it is also objective (by that standard).

If I said that, I assume their response would probably be, "The Bible." So that can't really be applied to atheist morality, because no system of atheist morality would be "The Bible." ...

"So the bible is what's objective? How can we tell that the bible is objective? What do you mean by "objective," and how can we identify the bible as something that qualifies?

[rookiebatman]

"So the bible is what's objective? How can we tell that the bible is objective? What do you mean by "objective," and how can we identify the bible as something that qualifies?

Sure, that's fine, but what I'm saying is, once you spiral down into that discussion about the validity of the Bible, they're just gonna blissfully forget that the whole point of getting into that discussion in the first place was to prove that claiming it as the objective source of morality doesn't make any sense.