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.

[instantc]

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.

I believe that morality is objective, but that's purely based on intuition.

That being said, while I think that it is fine for someone to believe that morality is objective on the mere basis that it seems to be, I think that it is somewhat dishonest to construct an argument on that basis. Especially if one accepts that objective morals could not exist without God, then surely more reasonable conclusion seems to be that neither one exists.

[McCulloch]

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.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

I think the point is that if morality is subjective then on what authority do we impose it? If it isn't objective then why should we follow it?

Of course, this line of 'reasoning' leaves out the fact that we as a society of humans can collectively decide on what is right and wrong - we do it all the time with legal rulings, for example.

[Divine Insight]

I think the point is that if morality is subjective then on what authority do we impose it?

I think this is the most serious mistake that everyone is making. Including politicians and legislators unfortunately.

The bottom line is that there is no need to "impose morality" onto anyone.

Laws should not be based on what we believe to be "moral" or "immoral". That is simply not necessary, and actually a very bad way of making laws.

Social laws should be based purely and solely on "Protection of the Citizens of the Society".

That's all we need. We don't need "morality".

Should it be illegal to murder? Absolutely, because to allow the citizens of the society to murder each other would not be protecting them. So no concept of morality is even required to make a law against murder.

Same is true of rape, and any other activities that would cause harm to members of the society.

How about theft or stealing? Well, a society is based on trade, and even "fair trade". We recognize money, and ownership. Therefore laws against thievery make sense to protect the citizens rights to ownership.

We don't need a concept of morality to make laws. It's just not necessary.

So the whole idea of "imposing morality" onto others is an unnecessary idea. We don't need to do that. And our laws should not be based on what we deem to be "moral". They only need to be based on "protecting the citizens". That would automatically make that somewhat "moral" by most people's standards anyway. But at the same time they wouldn't need to be based on morality.

Take traffic laws as a great example. Traffic laws have absolutely nothing at all to do with morality. They are designed entirely for safety to protect the citizens.

Even the law "Thou shalt not drive drunk", is based solely on safety concerns. It really has nothing at all to do with morality.

Society really has no need for a system of morality actually.

All it needs to do is protect it's citizens and everything will take care of itself from there on out naturally. No morality required.

[JonDarbyXIII]

[Replying to post 1 by rookiebatman]

Morality seems to be objective only to the extent that an individual society declares it to be, and interestingly enough, Christianity proves this. Slavery was once ok because the society (that culture during that point in history) said it was ok. Theists will say that we can look back now and see that, regardless of what they thought, it was still objectively wrong, but this is not the case. Morality is determined by society, and no matter how we see it now, that society thought these actions were ok.

Now, this is not to say we can't have reasons for our morality. Was the holocaust immoral? I think so. Why? Because I don't agree with the idea that some people are inferior and should be killed because of their religious/cultural identity. Granted, I don't think a lot of theists would object to this logic, but is this logic objective or subjective? Much of the Old Testament glorified this exact behavior (through divine commands), so I would think that Christians would have a hard time claiming it is objective.

For morality, I usually use the example of rape (theHeathensGuide.com/rape-question-of-morality) specifically because it is never condemned in the Bible. There has to be reasoning outside of "Because God said so" when God in fact never said so.

[wiploc]

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.

Imagine William Lane Craig on stage, in front of one of his packed audiences (they bus in hundreds of Christians so there won't be many seats left for non-Christians). The people in the audience have all their lives been told that theirs is the only real morality. They believe that if morality isn't "objective," if it isn't from god, then it is arbitrary, optional, and not an actual guide to behavior.

They believe that if morality isn't "objective," then any behavior is as good as any other.

So WLC's big win comes if he can get his opponent to express doubt about whether morality is really objective. Then he can say to his audience, in effect, "See! Atheists have no morals! They believe torturing babies is just as praiseworthy as giving money to the poor. You see the kind of person I am dealing with here. You can dismiss everything this person says, because it comes from a person with no allegiance to truth or decency."

So, even though we have no idea of what a Christian means by "objective" on any given night, or in any given paragraph, the correct response to WLC's baiting is to say, "My morality is just as objective as yours."

Because it's true. There is no test of objectivity that makes theist morality objective without also making atheist morality objective. There is no test that makes atheist morality subjective without also making theist morality subjective.

The argument from morality is based on equivocation. They use one test of whether theist morality is objective, and then they switch to a different test to determine whether atheist morality is objective.

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.)

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.

I like to ask what is good about objectivity. Which is better, an objective morality that encourages rape and slavery, or a subjective morality that discourages them?

But why? Where's the support for the initial premise that morality is objective?

Remember not to assume what they mean by "objective." They don't usually have a clear meaning in mind. They'll talk, for instance, about subjective vs. absolute, as if those were opposites. They often don't have the same meaning in mind at the end of a sentence as they did at the beginning.

...
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?

Their answer to that: There is a true and objective real morality that everybody ought to follow. But some people are confused. They may want to be moral, but they are wrong about what the rules of morality are.

Their confusion in no way contradicts the fact that there really is one true objective standard.

[bluethread]

All it needs to do is protect it's citizens and everything will take care of itself from there on out naturally. No morality required.

That is a moral premise. Also, everything will not take care of itself. There will always be those cases where one will have to choose between protecting one set of citizens or protecting another set of citizens. Your solution is no different from the golden rule in it's simplicity and in it's lack of detail. It provides a moral foundation or guiding principle, but there will still need to be a moral code that applies that to various circumstances.


Pazuzu bin Hanbi

I think the point is that if morality is subjective then on what authority do we impose it? If it isn't objective then why should we follow it?

Of course, this line of 'reasoning' leaves out the fact that we as a society of humans can collectively decide on what is right and wrong - we do it all the time with legal rulings, for example.

That is why moral objections to certain "evil" societies are nothing more than attempts by "good" societies to justify their social order. When it comes to social morality, the winners make the rules.

[Provoker]

[Replying to rookiebatman]Morality is the natural outcome of man's survival instinct. It all boils down to one thing: DON'T TEASE THE BEAR.
Our actions are determined by our conscious, or unconscious, calculation of the risk to our life, our health, our job, our happiness, etc. Morality appears to be defined as low risk decisions.
High risk decisions tend to make people either heros, or criminals.

[rookiebatman]

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?