Argument for Objective Morality Without God

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

jgh7

Argument for Objective Morality Without God

Post #1

Post by jgh7 »

This was an argument of mine back in 2015. I wanted to revisit it to gain some better understanding. Here it is in its original form:

------------------------------------------------------------

Argument of Objective morality without God existing: What it is in this case, and why it exists

1) Happiness can be the only thing that matters for you, a human. Anything else that matters to you is so because it relates in a way to your attempt at maintaining or increasing your happiness. Other's happiness mattering to you is just another way of saying that your own happiness matters to you, and it brings you happiness to care about other's happiness. Happiness is the all-inclusive word I use for positive emotions.

***
If you can propose how anything besides happiness can matter to you, then my entire argument is invalid from this point on. Please let me know if you can.
***

2) Objective morality has been previously defined as a system of guidelines by which thinking entities should interact with one another, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.
3) The word “should� in the prior statement means that there is a logical reason for thinking entities to interact with others in a certain way.
4) I state now that the only logical reason for a thinking entity to interact in a certain way with others is to achieve what matters to them. Since the only thing that can matter to each individual is their happiness, achieving happiness is the only logical reason for how each individual should act towards others.

***
If you can propose a reason for a thinking entity to interact with others that is in no way related to achieving what matters to that thinking entity, then I will no longer hold (4) to be a fact. Please let me know if you can.
***

5) It is commonly known that happiness has different degrees. Examine your own happiness to prove this. Was there a time when you were happier compared to another time?
6) Since each individual’s happiness has different degrees, there must exist some way of living that will bring their happiness to the highest degree for the most amount of time.
7) Since there exists for each individual a way of living that maximizes their happiness, and as long as there is a definite reason for that happiness increase, objective morality exists. Whether the guidelines for objective morality are known by that individual is irrelevant. The way of living exists, and the guidelines (reasons) for that way of living exist.

* One way that objective morality does not exist is if there are zero reasons for any and all happiness increases and thus zero possible guidelines that could be followed. All happiness increase is therefore completely random and with no cause in this case. I feel no need to argue the impossibility of this. It should be apparent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The questions are, is this argument logical and sound? Does it qualify as objective morality or is it subjective?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Argument for Objective Morality Without God

Post #2

Post by Divine Insight »

jgh7 wrote: The questions are, is this argument logical and sound? Does it qualify as objective morality or is it subjective?
I would say that it's ultimately subjective. It's the subjective view of the "Thinking Humans" that you are proposing.

To being with your so-called "objective morality" requires a thinking mind. Therefore it cannot be truly objective. In other words, where does this moral code apply to the universe at large? Clearly the universe doesn't care about anyone's happiness, and this is no doubt due to the fact that the universe does not think about what it's doing.

There are also secondary problems with your ideal. All humans don't necessarily view "happiness" in the same way. Nor do they require the same things for their own "happiness". So the very concept of "happiness" is already a subjective concept.

Besides, what about the selfish humans who couldn't care less about the happiness of others? You suggest that a person's individual happiness requires that all other humans are also happy, but unfortunately there are humans who clearly don't agree with that sentiment.

Finally, why the need for "Absolute Morality"?

It's not required for anything useful. Humans can make laws for their societies that have absolutely nothing at all to do with morality. In fact, they do this all the time. How is making a law the people have to pay property tax related to morality? Face it, it's not. And there are many examples of laws that have nothing at all to do with morality.

So morality isn't required for making laws.

Apparently the only two things a concept of morality are good for are the following:

1. A person can feel good about themselves by convincing themselves that they are a moral person.

OR

2. People can use the concept of morality to point fingers at other people proclaiming that those people are immoral.


Other than these two reasons, there is no practical value in the concept of morality at all.

And when it comes to "objective morality", all that does is arm reasons #1 and #2 above with some sort of "absolute authority".

Even religious people who claim that their God represents "Absolute Morality" can't even agree on what is or isn't moral. So it's basically a useless concept anyway.


It's really never been anything but a "finger-pointing" concept invented by humans to point fingers at other humans for supposedly not being as "moral" as the finger-pointer. :roll:

That appears to be all it has ever been used for. It's a useless concept.

We're far better off with obtaining a social consensus for subjective ethics, and just go with that.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #3

Post by The Tanager »

Perhaps my problem is how you have defined objective morality. It doesn't seem to account for objectivity as many people seem to mean it. Your 'ought' seems to change for each individual in what will truly make them happy (as opposed to what they think will make them happy) and seems subjective in that sense.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Argument for Objective Morality Without God

Post #4

Post by bluethread »

jgh7 wrote:

5) It is commonly known that happiness has different degrees. Examine your own happiness to prove this. Was there a time when you were happier compared to another time?
6) Since each individual’s happiness has different degrees, there must exist some way of living that will bring their happiness to the highest degree for the most amount of time.
7) Since there exists for each individual a way of living that maximizes their happiness, and as long as there is a definite reason for that happiness increase, objective morality exists. Whether the guidelines for objective morality are known by that individual is irrelevant. The way of living exists, and the guidelines (reasons) for that way of living exist.
It is improtant that we understand what is being addressed by the term happiness. Is this a sense of good feeling and satisfaction, or is this refering to the more classical view of happiness, i.e. the life worth living?

jgh7

Post #5

Post by jgh7 »

Divine Insight wrote:
jgh7 wrote: The questions are, is this argument logical and sound? Does it qualify as objective morality or is it subjective?
I would say that it's ultimately subjective. It's the subjective view of the "Thinking Humans" that you are proposing.

To being with your so-called "objective morality" requires a thinking mind. Therefore it cannot be truly objective. In other words, where does this moral code apply to the universe at large? Clearly the universe doesn't care about anyone's happiness, and this is no doubt due to the fact that the universe does not think about what it's doing.
The moral code does not apply to the universe. I don't see why objective morality needs to apply to things that don't think.
Divine Insight wrote: There are also secondary problems with your ideal. All humans don't necessarily view "happiness" in the same way. Nor do they require the same things for their own "happiness". So the very concept of "happiness" is already a subjective concept.
Is there a rule stating that for objective morality to be true, it must have the exact same rules for everyone? My understanding was that so long as the morality is true regardless of anyone's opinion, it is objective.
Divine Insight wrote: Besides, what about the selfish humans who couldn't care less about the happiness of others? You suggest that a person's individual happiness requires that all other humans are also happy, but unfortunately there are humans who clearly don't agree with that sentiment.
I never suggested that an individual's happiness requires that all others are happy. My argument's morality would take into account someone's selfish nature and in doing so its rules for their maximum happiness would disregard others well-being more than its rules for a caring person's maximum happiness.
The Tanager wrote: Perhaps my problem is how you have defined objective morality. It doesn't seem to account for objectivity as many people seem to mean it. Your 'ought' seems to change for each individual in what will truly make them happy (as opposed to what they think will make them happy) and seems subjective in that sense.
To be clear, would you say that an objectively moral rule has to be the same for each individual? My understanding was that so long as the moral rule is true regardless of anyone's opinion, it is objective. There could be different rules for each person, but so long as those rules are true regardless of opinion, they're objective.
bluethread wrote:
It is improtant that we understand what is being addressed by the term happiness. Is this a sense of good feeling and satisfaction, or is this refering to the more classical view of happiness, i.e. the life worth living?
Well, good feeling and satisfaction are definitely a part of it. I defined happiness as the all-inclusive term for positive emotions. As far as the classical view of "the life worth living", I don't know what that means exactly. Could you explain the definition of a life worth living?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #6

Post by The Tanager »

[Replying to post 5 by jgh7]

Terms, of course, get used differently by different people, but this is how I would use them. In my understanding, what you are describing would be a kind of moral subjectivism or perhaps it would be better to call it moral relativism. It seems to me that moral objectivism is usually meant to be something that applies to everyone in the same way. But this doesn't mean certain acts can't be moral and immoral in different situations (that would be to confuse objectivism with moral absolutism, as many use that term).

Let's look at an example of stealing:

(a) a moral relativist like I see you describing would say stealing for Person A is actually wrong, even if they think it would make them happy and that this same act of stealing for Person B is actually right, even if they think it would make them unhappy.

(b) while a moral subjectivist may say that stealing is wrong for Person A because they think it would make them happy

(c) a moral objectivist, as I understand that term, would say that stealing, say, another person's spouse, is wrong for both Person A and Person B no matter their feelings on the matter. That neither person would truly, ultimately be happier by committing adultery. Yet, the objectivist could say, for example, that both Person A and B are moral for stealing bread to feed a starving child. They can be moral situationalists (which some people also call moral relativism, but it's different than (a)).

(d) a moral absolutist would say that stealing is never moral, no matter the situation.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Argument for Objective Morality Without God

Post #7

Post by William »

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]
Argument of Objective morality without God existing: What it is in this case, and why it exists

1) Happiness can be the only thing that matters for you, a human. Anything else that matters to you is so because it relates in a way to your attempt at maintaining or increasing your happiness. Other's happiness mattering to you is just another way of saying that your own happiness matters to you, and it brings you happiness to care about other's happiness. Happiness is the all-inclusive word I use for positive emotions.

***
If you can propose how anything besides happiness can matter to you, then my entire argument is invalid from this point on. Please let me know if you can.
The initial problem I have with this is that, in excluding GOD from existing, this in itself means that those who depend on GOD existing in order to maintain their happiness won't be happy.

In that, if I were to take your statement above and replace the word 'happiness' with the words 'connection with GOD';

1) Connection with GOD can be the only thing that matters for you, a human. Anything else that matters to you is so because it relates in a way to your attempt at maintaining or increasing your connection with GOD. Other's connection with GOD mattering to you is just another way of saying that your own connection with GOD matters to you, and it brings you connection with GOD to care about other's connection with GOD. Connection with GOD is the all-inclusive [strike]word[/strike] phrase I use for positive emotions.

***
If you can propose how anything besides connection with GOD can matter to you, then my entire argument is invalid from this point on. Please let me know if you can.



So then it becomes something along the lines of 'Argument for Objective Morality Without Happiness' - at least for those of us who maintain happiness through connections with GOD.
2) Objective morality has been previously defined as a system of guidelines by which thinking entities should interact with one another, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.
3) The word “should� in the prior statement means that there is a logical reason for thinking entities to interact with others in a certain way.
4) I state now that the only logical reason for a thinking entity to interact in a certain way with others is to achieve what matters to them. Since the only thing that can matter to each individual is their happiness, achieving happiness is the only logical reason for how each individual should act towards others.
I think happiness has something to do with morality as you suggest. But some people are (at least in their own mind) happiest taking advantage of others and so one would have to include that if one makes others unhappy - then that is not moral.

Then one would have to define that in such a way that people can't take advantage of it by becoming 'victims' by not taking some kind of self responsibility and pointing fingers at others for their own unhappiness.

And what about unhappiness? Is that having a lack of morals? Then we would have to look at the idea of morals in that we may have some but not all the morals necessary for complete happiness.
5) It is commonly known that happiness has different degrees. Examine your own happiness to prove this. Was there a time when you were happier compared to another time?
6) Since each individual’s happiness has different degrees, there must exist some way of living that will bring their happiness to the highest degree for the most amount of time.
7) Since there exists for each individual a way of living that maximizes their happiness, and as long as there is a definite reason for that happiness increase, objective morality exists. Whether the guidelines for objective morality are known by that individual is irrelevant. The way of living exists, and the guidelines (reasons) for that way of living exist.
Therein we might have a problem. Is it natural to be able to achieve "happiness to the highest degree for the most amount of time." or more practical to achieve a kind of perpetual happiness which doesn't rely so much on external events dictating levels of happiness?

For example, one can be at a funeral for a loved one and feel genuinely sad about ones loss and express that externally, but still maintain that perpetual level of happiness internally.

In the same way, one can be moral while in unhappy circumstances/circumstances which most would agree should make someone unhappy.

Is morality so entwined with happiness that they can be regarded as mutually necessary?

I understand that excluding the idea of GOD from the discussion allows for us to explore the idea of objective morality without having to invoke GOD as the reason we are able to be moral creatures, but I don't think morality necessarily has to involve happiness...at least not the kind of happiness you are describing.

I think at least we should agree to what REAL happiness has to involve first. In my mind, for someone to be truly happy, they have to be able to achieve this without causing others unhappiness in the process. This in itself might well involve morals, where causing others legitimate unhappiness (directly or indirectly) needs to be regarded as immoral.

Certainly I think it is a complicated subject, with or without the idea of GOD.

liamconnor
Prodigy
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: Argument for Objective Morality Without God

Post #8

Post by liamconnor »

Divine Insight wrote:
jgh7 wrote: The questions are, is this argument logical and sound? Does it qualify as objective morality or is it subjective?
I would say that it's ultimately subjective. It's the subjective view of the "Thinking Humans" that you are proposing.

To being with your so-called "objective morality" requires a thinking mind. Therefore it cannot be truly objective. In other words, where does this moral code apply to the universe at large? Clearly the universe doesn't care about anyone's happiness, and this is no doubt due to the fact that the universe does not think about what it's doing.

There are also secondary problems with your ideal. All humans don't necessarily view "happiness" in the same way. Nor do they require the same things for their own "happiness". So the very concept of "happiness" is already a subjective concept.

Besides, what about the selfish humans who couldn't care less about the happiness of others? You suggest that a person's individual happiness requires that all other humans are also happy, but unfortunately there are humans who clearly don't agree with that sentiment.

Finally, why the need for "Absolute Morality"?

It's not required for anything useful. Humans can make laws for their societies that have absolutely nothing at all to do with morality. In fact, they do this all the time. How is making a law the people have to pay property tax related to morality? Face it, it's not. And there are many examples of laws that have nothing at all to do with morality.

So morality isn't required for making laws.

Apparently the only two things a concept of morality are good for are the following:

1. A person can feel good about themselves by convincing themselves that they are a moral person.

OR

2. People can use the concept of morality to point fingers at other people proclaiming that those people are immoral.


Other than these two reasons, there is no practical value in the concept of morality at all.

And when it comes to "objective morality", all that does is arm reasons #1 and #2 above with some sort of "absolute authority".

Even religious people who claim that their God represents "Absolute Morality" can't even agree on what is or isn't moral. So it's basically a useless concept anyway.


It's really never been anything but a "finger-pointing" concept invented by humans to point fingers at other humans for supposedly not being as "moral" as the finger-pointer. :roll:

That appears to be all it has ever been used for. It's a useless concept.

We're far better off with obtaining a social consensus for subjective ethics, and just go with that.
We're far better off with obtaining a social consensus for subjective ethics, and just go with that.
Can you define "better off"? That implies some ideal standard which we are either approaching or retreating from.

Is a man living in opulence and psychologically content, though his lifestyle is contingent upon the misery of others, better off?

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Argument for Objective Morality Without God

Post #9

Post by 2ndRateMind »

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

This is similar to what the utilitarians propose; that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be our 'objective' guide to what is, and is not, moral. The two most telling arguments against this claim seem to me to be a) how are we to measure happiness? By the total amount of some unit or other (call that unit a hedon for the sake of argument), and then try to define the hedon. It doesn't seem to work, like measuring in gallons or miles does. And b) even if it did work, are we justified in removing some hedons from some people, because the net result is a general increase in the total number of hedons? I don't think we are, or we could justifiably take a perfectly healthy individual, and remove his organs (spleen, bowel, heart, lungs, kidneys, liver etc) to give to many sick people, given the cure of many would outweigh the death of one, to result in an overall increase in the number of hedons, or happiness.

As I have said elsewhere, the situation is further complicated by the fact that the term 'happiness' is liable to mean different things to different people. For some, their own happiness is all the excuse they need to indulge in vice without restraint. For others, it is their right to the trivial pursuit of convenience, comfort and 'fun'. For others yet, it is a quiet conscience and deep contentment with oneself and one's situation, which can only be won by the continual exercise of virtue.

So, yes, I do think a happiness centred morality ultimately doomed as an intellectual enterprise, if it admits no other consideration to the ethical calculus. Which is not to say happiness is entirely irrelevant, just that it is not the sole deciding factor of the moral.

Best wishes, 2RM.

PS Incidentally, if you wish to pursue this theme of dividing religion and ethics, which I would encourage, thinking it to be an entirely worthwhile project to remove theological baggage from analytic philosophy, you may be interested in getting hold of a copy of this book, which addresses the topic directly, and might help you in your deliberations. 2RM

jgh7

Post #10

Post by jgh7 »

I think I had a flawed definition of objective morality to start off with. I viewed it solely as being true regardless of opinion. However it seems that another stipulation has to be added that it must be a truth that applies to everyone.

Post Reply