Why Must Morality Be Objective?

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
rookiebatman
Sage
Posts: 550
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:02 am

Why Must Morality Be Objective?

Post #1

Post by 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.
Last edited by rookiebatman on Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anomaly
Student
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:09 am

Re: Why Must Morality Be Objective?

Post #41

Post by Anomaly »

[Replying to enviousintheeverafter]
..there isn't an especially interesting debate about whether truth is, in general, objective- it is (indeed it is probably a necessary condition for truth). The question then, is whether (objective) truth can be a property of moral claims/judgments. There are some good reasons to think it cannot be
A lot depends on a definition of truth. I follow Avicenna that truth (more accurately value) is inherent in essence. From this vantage point, we go through life essentially trying to sort out truth from falsity in actions, thoughts, etc. imo. That is, after all, the thing we're after in this or any discussion of morality: whether moral laws are true or false. The objective/subjective thing seems to me not that important...aside from matters of taste and personal feelings, the idea of truth in the way things are and the ways we should act dissolve into incoherence unless they've objective.

enviousintheeverafter
Sage
Posts: 743
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:51 am

Re: Why Must Morality Be Objective?

Post #42

Post by enviousintheeverafter »

[Replying to post 41 by Anomaly]

Given that, as I mentioned, subject-invariance or objectivity is pretty clearly a necessary condition for truth- all truth is objective and anything not objective cannot be true- so to ask whether morality is objective is just to ask whether there are moral truths. But then, this means that objectivity or truth are interchangeable, and phrases like "objective truth" are redundant- but only because we can frame the issue either as one of truth or objectivity. So objectivity may be redundant depending on how the issue is framed, but the objectivity of morality is clearly the heart of the issue here (i.e. whether conflicting moralities or moral judgments can be right or wrong, or just different).

But this is where the difference between truth and value becomes crucial- since morality is clearly a matter of value, its ability to also be true becomes highly suspect in light of the is/ought, fact/value chasm, and the inability to give any intelligible or compelling metaphysical account of moral truthmakers.

Anomaly
Student
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:09 am

Re: Why Must Morality Be Objective?

Post #43

Post by Anomaly »

[Replying to post 42 by enviousintheeverafter]
Given that, as I mentioned, subject-invariance or objectivity is pretty clearly a necessary condition for truth- all truth is objective and anything not objective cannot be true- so to ask whether morality is objective is just to ask whether there are moral truths. But then, this means that objectivity or truth are interchangeable, and phrases like "objective truth" are redundant- but only because we can frame the issue either as one of truth or objectivity. So objectivity may be redundant depending on how the issue is framed, but the objectivity of morality is clearly the heart of the issue here (i.e. whether conflicting moralities or moral judgments can be right or wrong, or just different).
I agree for the most part. There are subjective elements to truth, but these don't subtract from the notion that truth is, for the most part, an objective quality. Also agree that the objectivity or truth of morality is being questioned.
But this is where the difference between truth and value becomes crucial- since morality is clearly a matter of value, its ability to also be true becomes highly suspect in light of the is/ought, fact/value chasm, and the inability to give any intelligible or compelling metaphysical account of moral truthmakers.
But when truth is taken to be metaphysically inherent to all being, the statement, "...since morality is clearly a matter of value, its ability to also be true becomes highly suspect..." becomes incoherent specifically because truth is the property that creates notions of value. Value follows from and is generated by truth in this view. To discuss value is to discuss degrees of truth. Degrees of value are arguably created by fragmental mixtures of truth and falsity, and all creation (I approach this from a Christian viewpoint) exists in this fragmental state...hence, our perceptions of ranges of value in everything from gold and silver to moral propositions exist because at base the properties that form value (true or false) inheres all things. This is why I stated earlier that discussions of morality are really only discussions of truth.

Don't want to take this off topic too far, but I don't think the chasm between fact and value, body/mind, flesh/spirit, etc. exists from lack of truthmakers but specifically because the truthmakers in incorporeal reality are prescriptive and powerful while truthmakers in factual reality are intrinsically inert. Falsity in the proposition 2+2=5 raises a simple tension in the mind while the directive that we ought to conform to a moral code raises a much more powerful resistance. Christ showed this prescriptive resistance by telling His detractors truths they were not cleansed (they were not adequately truth-oriented in being to unite with) to 'hear'. He was literally murdered for telling the truth...and in so doing showed us the real power of prescriptive truth that underlies the moral issue.

I'm convinced that the power of prescriptive truth causes the atheist response...i.e.,by building arenas in which only inert descriptive truth is allowed to be "real", moral truth is automatically disallowed. It hurts too much--creates uncomfortable pressure in the inadequately truth-oriented mind to allow prescriptive truth to be objective which of course is readily accorded to the factual realm. Thus, the basis of materialism and all thought that disallows prescriptive truth is actually a robust negative response to truth in morality itself. 'Freethinkers' are only so because they lock themselves away into materialist philosophies where they can be "free" from the pressure of prescriptive truth.

This in a nutshell is why I suggest that discussions of morality are really discussions of truth itself.

enviousintheeverafter
Sage
Posts: 743
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:51 am

Re: Why Must Morality Be Objective?

Post #44

Post by enviousintheeverafter »

Anomaly wrote: But when truth is taken to be metaphysically inherent to all being, the statement, "...since morality is clearly a matter of value, its ability to also be true becomes highly suspect..." becomes incoherent specifically because truth is the property that creates notions of value.
But what exactly are we talking about here when we say that truth is "inherent to all being"? Truth, as ordinarily conceived/defined (both colloquially and in epistemology) consists in some sort of correspondence or satisfaction relation between linguistic/representational tokens (claims, sentences, propositions, beliefs, etc.) and the way things are. Without the former, there is no such thing as truth, just the facts (i.e. the way things are).
Value follows from and is generated by truth in this view.
In what sense? It seems there's a pretty radical terminological difference here, and I'm having trouble imagining what you might mean by any of this.
Don't want to take this off topic too far, but I don't think the chasm between fact and value, body/mind, flesh/spirit, etc. exists from lack of truthmakers but specifically because the truthmakers in incorporeal reality are prescriptive and powerful while truthmakers in factual reality are intrinsically inert.
So what are those incorporeal prescriptive truthmakers? What is it that makes a given moral judgment true or false? Are we talking about the will of God, or something?
I'm convinced that the power of prescriptive truth causes the atheist response...i.e.,by building arenas in which only inert descriptive truth is allowed to be "real", moral truth is automatically disallowed. It hurts too much--creates uncomfortable pressure in the inadequately truth-oriented mind to allow prescriptive truth to be objective which of course is readily accorded to the factual realm. Thus, the basis of materialism and all thought that disallows prescriptive truth is actually a robust negative response to truth in morality itself. 'Freethinkers' are only so because they lock themselves away into materialist philosophies where they can be "free" from the pressure of prescriptive truth.
For one thing, this is just factually incorrect to associate atheism, materialism, and moral anti-realism; most people are moral realists (i.e. they think there are things like objective moral truths or facts), atheists and materialists included, and there almost assuredly are theistic moral anti-realists as well. But skepticism about moral truth doesn't appear to have anything to do with fear, pressure, or any such thing, but the fact that accounts of objective moral truth don't stand up to critical scrutiny particularly well (in light of the arguments/considerations I've already mentioned). The is/ought chasm, for instance, is not a psychological concern, but a logical problem- and an apparently intractable one.

Anomaly
Student
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:09 am

Re: Why Must Morality Be Objective?

Post #45

Post by Anomaly »

[Replying to enviousintheeverafter]
But what exactly are we talking about here when we say that truth is "inherent to all being"? Truth, as ordinarily conceived/defined (both colloquially and in epistemology) consists in some sort of correspondence or satisfaction relation between linguistic/representational tokens (claims, sentences, propositions, beliefs, etc.) and the way things are. Without the former, there is no such thing as truth, just the facts (i.e. the way things are).
The view of truth I hold is a bit unorthodox. There’s a PDF by Daniel DeHaan floating around on the internet that outlines Avicenna’s idea of truth, similar to what’s been posted here. DeHaan’s paper might answer some of the questions you rasie.
I think this view of truth is superior to the status quo because, for instance, its structure illustrates that correspondence (and this also holds for other popular notions of truth) is not a reasonable explanation of what truth is; it more appropriately explains what truth does.
In what sense? It seems there's a pretty radical terminological difference here, and I'm having trouble imagining what you might mean by any of this.
I’d think this would be self-evident. A definition of value is “The quality (positive or negative) that renders something desirable or valuable� Degrees of value are arguably formed by degrees of truth and falsity. I think it’s difficult to understand the concept because we tend to not entertain the idea of truth in factual things. Moral value is more easily identified as pertaining to truth, where facts (as you point out) are not, though it's easy to see that the outdoor temp is 70 degrees is either true or false. Truth requires a arbiter. Example: We can say a house has truth (value) to the degree it meets its design criteria. A house is true to the extent is provides comfort, safe haven, has systems that properly supply heating and cooling, water, transports waste away, etc. As a house deteriorates (falsifies) its value changes in direct proportion to that falsification. Goods spring from truth, evils from falsity. The good of health is falsified by cancer.
So what are those incorporeal prescriptive truthmakers? What is it that makes a given moral judgment true or false? Are we talking about the will of God, or something?
Truth itself is the truthmaker. All things are truthbearers, interactions between truthbearers produce truthmaking in perception. Truth in the essence of things produces (in minds) truth as a concept, truth in perception and the things perceived stimulate unity, coherence, etc.; the force of attraction we call ‘corresponcence’ with truth in other things.

This view of truth does away with divine command theory. God doesn’t have to command anything. Truth itself is the only necessary arbiter of morality Being that is wholly true eliminates moral pressure; perfection in being theoretically produces perfection in act (in the theoretical presence of a wholly true existence). God doesn’t have to command anything, truth simply is. This justifies Jesus stating, "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.� Truth permeates all things and is sole arbiter and judge of human action because action is the expression of human value. God doesn’t have to judge. Truth itself judges. Anything false is judged already because (and only because) falsity is at odds with truth. All judgment boils down to this single concept: truth unites with the true and rejects/resists the false.
For one thing, this is just factually incorrect to associate atheism, materialism, and moral anti-realism; most people are moral realists (i.e. they think there are things like objective moral truths or facts), atheists and materialists included, and there almost assuredly are theistic moral anti-realists as well. But skepticism about moral truth doesn't appear to have anything to do with fear, pressure, or any such thing, but the fact that accounts of objective moral truth don't stand up to critical scrutiny particularly well (in light of the arguments/considerations I've already mentioned). The is/ought chasm, for instance, is not a psychological concern, but a logical problem- and an apparently intractable one.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I do not associate atheism and materialism with anti-realism. I don’t know how you extracted anti-realism from what I posted. I do associate atheism with materialism and feel justified in it due to the strong correlation of the two.

Maybe moral skepticism doesn’t appear to you to be associated with prescriptive pressure, but this may only be because you’re not fully familiar with the concept of truth as presented here. In popular understandings of truth you’re right, Is-ought seems only a logical problem. The strength of the view of truth I contend for is that it suggests that truth is also psychological, spiritual and causal. Also it may be that the Christian paradigm as I understand it—that salvation consists in the eventual restoration of creation to a wholly true state—will, for all intents and purposes, dissolve ought into is. Theoretically, P and ~P may be only expressions of truth and falsity (in an idealistic, not realist, sense) instead of the physical—non-physical. When all things are true, only P will remain. We can’t see a connection between p and ~p, but can follow the transfer of value between realms with relative ease.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #46

Post by ttruscott »

McCulloch wrote: The obvious flaw in the argument from morality is that is an argument from consequences.
  1. If there is no God, then there cannot be any kind of objective morality
  2. We don't like the idea that morality is subjective
  3. Therefore, there must be a God
When confronted with this argument, many of us focus on trying to demonstrate that (a) is false, if we are atheist or (a) is true, if we are theist. But we neglect that the overall form of this argument is seriously flawed.
I'm curious - how would you define an objective morality without an outside pov, without GOD?
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #47

Post by Bust Nak »

ttruscott wrote: I'm curious - how would you define an objective morality without an outside pov, without GOD?
I'm curious as to how anyone could define an objective morality in relation to GOD's pov. Bearing in mind the defining feature of objectivity is that it is independent from any points of view.

Artie
Prodigy
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:26 pm

Post #48

Post by Artie »

ttruscott wrote:I'm curious - how would you define an objective morality without an outside pov, without GOD?
Evolution. We evolved instincts like the survival instinct and the instinct to procreate. Vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring they do not starve. When humans share their food with starving people we say they behave morally. We do it for the same reason that vampire bats do it. The behavior increases everybody's chances of survival including our own.

Elpolloloco79
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 2:39 pm

Re: Why Must Morality Be Objective?

Post #49

Post by Elpolloloco79 »

There is no pure objectivity that exists for all things all of the time. Objectivity is topical in nature, so if you are a Catholic, it is rather straight forward as to what moral objectivity is, same for any other Christain denomination. This also applies to all forms of theology. Because the majority of atheists hold true to science as a form of truth, then the question becomes" how can an atheists prove scientifically that killing is bad or good? Objective morality based on science does exist, but atheists like theists, tend to pick and choose, rather than practice what they preach objectively.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Why Must Morality Be Objective?

Post #50

Post by JehovahsWitness »

[Replying to post 1 by rookiebatman]


Why Must Morality Be Objective?


Without being a supreme power, knowing the consequence of everything, the longterm effect of everything, what else can it be but opinion?
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Post Reply