Can morality be objective in a world without God?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I've heard many individuals posit that God is needed to create objective moral standards. After pondering such a statement, I have come to the conclusion that it couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, the existence of a God is irrelevant to the debate on the objectivity/subjectivity of morals.

My first belief is that objective moral standards exist categorically. If person A randomly walks up to person B and kills him for fun, then person A has committed an immoral act. Now some will argue that if person A's culture condones and promotes such behavior then person A was acting morally. I disagree, as the way societies classify behavior should not affect that behavior's moral standing. Behavior "x"(in this case random killing) just is, always has been, and always will be morally wrong/right, no matter how a societiy's feelings towards it change. Morality exists in a realm alongside laws of nature (things like the creation of the universe, gravity, consciousness etc.), in that such things remain unchanged and true to their original cause/form regardless of how we humans perceive them.

Now that is my argument for morality being objective, next is my simple argument for why God is irrelevant.
Let's assume God does exist and outlines a set of behaviors that are immoral. How is this any different then societies outlining what is moral/immoral? It is moral subjectivity on a higher level, as you are now only getting God's opinion of what is moral. Is it not possible for God to label something as moral, when in reality the action is immoral? Or does that contradict the idea of God?

For example, let's assume an alternate universe exists in which everything is exactly the same except the God of that universe labels baby killing as a moral action. Now people who kill babies in that universe may not be punished by that God, but does that still not make their actions immoral? In turn, if God's classification of morality is just an opinion like that of humans, then it doesn't matter if God exists or not to have objective morals. I guess to be on board with that assertion, you have to buy into my original assertion that morality exists in an outer realm unaffected of how individuals (both human and gods) perceive or classify them.

Rebuttals, thoughts?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 6,225 • Replies: 128

No top replies

what you propose is certainly possible logically. but it doesn't seem to have much practical use, unless you're claiming that the world we inhabit has objective moral standards but no God. in that case, you will have to prove both of your premises, because they are not self-evident.

0 Replies

"hat you propose is certainly possible logically. but it doesn't seem to have much practical use, unless you're claiming that the world we inhabit has objective moral standards but no God. in that case, you will have to prove both of your premises, because they are not self-evident."

Well I'm not much of a philosopher so what exists above was my attempt to prove the existence of objective moral standards. In regards to the latter, I wouldn't be so foolish as to try and prove the non-existence of God.

If my argument for the existence of objective moral standards is not sufficient, I will try to come up with a more coherent argument that better reflects my thoughts.

0 Replies

BubbaGumbo wrote:

If my argument for the existence of objective moral standards is not sufficient, I will try to come up with a more coherent argument that better reflects my thoughts.

you stated your position/belief coherently enough in your second paragraph, but i don't think you proved it. you began by stating your belief that "moral standards exist categorically" and concluded by asserting that morality exists in an unchanging realm alongside laws of nature. in between, you observed that different societies and cultures have different norms of morality, which are sometimes mutually contradictory. this is where the analogy to scientific laws is inadequate, because there is no science of morality that can predict what behavior will be rewarded or punished in a given society, without actually observing these behaviors. a true science of morality would have to isolate a limited number of cultural variables, and define relations between them, such that by measuring just those variables it can predict values for other variables. a simple example from physics is knowing the height of an object, the time it takes to hit the ground after being dropped can be calculated to great accuracy. there are mathematical models in social science--the law of supply & demand in economics being one of the best known--but social sciences seem to me to lack the consensus you find in mathematics and physical sciences about basic results.

hope that wasn't too long-winded. :wink:

0 Replies

I think that morality absolutely can exist objectively without a God.

My philosophical belief is still under development but here goes:

We can see that there is a world out there. What some fail to realize sometimes is that we are a part of that world, that universe. All persons are of value themselves. It is self-evident in that since we are people, with rational cognitive existence, we can understand the significance of our life, for without it, we are not aware. We can also understand that pain is not something that we consider good, because as it is, it's a feeling that's not good, and a sign that we might be harmed or that harm is close by. Thus, we can understand why these things are not good. Seeing the world around us, we can see people. What we must realize is that these people are like us, they are a part of us, as we are a part of the universe and vice versa. We can reason what's right and what's wrong from these premises.

All argument specificating oneself as having more rights than others, are inherently flawed, since such an argument can not be applied in harmony with what is true. A selfish argument is self-absorbed, deeming one as separate from reality and deeming itself as its own reality, which is untrue.

Thus I have formulated Laws reasoned from the above (no, it's not I,Robot):

1) that all persons, have no right to harm/destroy a person's life
2) that all persons, have no right to treat people as objects
3) that all persons have the right to be free
4) that all persons, have no right to force another person, unless to stop a person violating law number 1 or law number 2 but the use of force must not be greater than the force about to be used by the violators.
5) that all living things have the right to be free of harm.

Ahem. That's my philosophy. Very Happy

0 Replies

Bubba, I think the problem in your thesis is the term "objective".

If God "created" morality, then by definitition it is not "objective". Morality that God creates because He prefers it that way is subjective.

A real objective morality would exist outside of the will of God. God would have no choice but to create a Universe that follows it.

God's existance or nonexistance would have no effect on an objective morality.

0 Replies

"
If God "created" morality, then by definitition it is not "objective". Morality that God creates because He prefers it that way is subjective.

A real objective morality would exist outside of the will of God. God would have no choice but to create a Universe that follows it.

God's existance or nonexistance would have no effect on an objective morality."

Isn't that exactly my point?

0 Replies

I am not arguing for an objective morality. I don't believe such a thing exists-- and I will make my argument for that in a bit.

The proof I offerered is for this thesis:

Quote:

If you can have an objective morality with a God.
Then you can have the same objective morality without a God.

So the answer to your original question is certainly "yes".

0 Replies

Bubba, if person A randomly walks up to entity B and kills him for fun, is it an immoral act if entity B is a deer and sport hunting is legal?

In this universe, God purportedly ordered Joshua and company to slay every man, woman and child in a number of cities. Was their action immoral, or was it moral because God ordered it and would punish them if they did not obey?

0 Replies

Ray, I agree that morality can be determined objectively from ethics based on empathy, in conjunction with an understanding of evolutionary biology. I do not believe that there are any inherent rights, but have come up with two basic Laws:

1. Do not cause unnecessary pain
2. Love and educate children.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Quote:

1) that all persons, have no right to harm/destroy a person's life
2) that all persons, have no right to treat people as objects
3) that all persons have the right to be free
4) that all persons, have no right to force another person, unless to stop a person violating law number 1 or law number 2 but the use of force must not be greater than the force about to be used by the violators.
5) that all living things have the right to be free of harm.

1. Including my own? What is to harm someone? Are you talking about ill intent? Even the worst intentions often lead to the most benefitial outcomes for the victim.

2. What are we to treat them as then? Most people see themselves as objects.

3. Freedom is a choice. The oppressors' will must be met by the will to be oppressed or there can be no oppression. Chose to be free and you will be.

4. And who's to say what goes? How does this stop or contain anything?

5. We are most harmfull to ourselves. Our enemies are within us. You have the right to be free of harm if you have the ability to.

I don't know where I'm going with this except to say that I don't think your laws would change anything.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Ray, I agree that morality can be determined objectively from ethics based on empathy, in conjunction with an understanding of evolutionary biology.

but is evolutionary biology consistent with empathy? doesn't survival of the fittest entail diverting resources from the weak and needy to the strong and successful?

0 Replies

From an Biology standpoint, empathy is very useful for primates especially and mammals in general. For a mammal, raising your young, often for many many years, is a key part of reproduction. Without empathy for young ones, the human species would not survive.

Human beings also use social relationships as a means of survival. Forming communities, having permanent families are all things that humans use to our advantage.

There are other species, for example turtles, that have no need for either society and don't care a bit about their young after they are buried.

Turtles have a far different mechanism for ensuring the survival of the species. They have a whole lot of babies and one or two of them survive. Turtle babies are on their own after they hatch and most of them die with no one... not even their own mother... even caring one bit.

Are turtles less moral than humans?

0 Replies

Further to ebrown above, I do not think "objectivity" exists except as ideal, even in the so-called "hard sciences". Even there, all observation is selective and the best we can hope for is descriptive consensus.

How much more "problematic" is our selectivity when it comes to the observation and classification of "human behavior"? The only distinction between "theistic" and "non-theistic" morality is the nature of the "authority" we assign to moral codes, whether these be "divine", "consential" or "pragmatic" etc.

Moral decisions are about conflict resolution in the flux of human relationships, and because these, and our own selves are constantly shifting with socio-historical contexts, then moral codes constantly adapt. History implies that even imperatives like "thou shalt not kill" become convoluted with contingency conditions.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

From an Biology standpoint, empathy is very useful for primates especially and mammals in general. For a mammal, raising your young, often for many many years, is a key part of reproduction. Without empathy for young ones, the human species would not survive.

yes, all mammals raise their young, instinctually, but instinctual behavior is generally not considered to be moral behavior. raising an orphan that's unrelated is a more germane example. moreover, a glaring counterexample is that a male monkey that deposes the alpha male will generally kill all the infants in the troop. source

0 Replies

Quote:

...but instinctual behavior is generally not considered to be moral behavior

You haven't proven this.

When the male monkey kills all the infants, would you say this is "immoral"?

I accept (at least for the sake of this discussion) that in terms of human behavior, this type of action would be immoral. But it seems that this fact says more about the "instincts" of human beings than it does about the morality of monkeys.

Consider the proposition "Human morality is nothing more than developed instinctual behavior."

Your monkey example in this case would be an perfect example of a case where mokey morality (i.e. instincts) developed differently than human morality (based on different social/biological needs).

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

...but instinctual behavior is generally not considered to be moral behavior

You haven't proven this.

well, morality to me concerns questions of conscious choice between alternative actions, but instinctual behavior is usually unconscious and automatic. to take an extreme example, there's an actual case of a man who killed his inlaws while sleepwalking, and he was acquited because he was not conscious of his actions, which included driving a car.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Bubba, I think the problem in your thesis is the term "objective".

If God "created" morality, then by definitition it is not "objective". Morality that God creates because He prefers it that way is subjective.

A real objective morality would exist outside of the will of God. God would have no choice but to create a Universe that follows it.

God's existance or nonexistance would have no effect on an objective morality.

That does not need to be true E Brown. God could be seperate from Good as the Greeks thought he was, and thus if he created human morality he would have made it objectively good.

However, upon the popular Christian conception of God I think you are correct.

TTF

0 Replies

Quote:

Ray, I agree that morality can be determined objectively from ethics based on empathy, in conjunction with an understanding of evolutionary biology. I do not believe that there are any inherent rights, but have come up with two basic Laws:

1. Do not cause unnecessary pain
2. Love and educate children.

Those are good laws to follow, but you might need to define necessary.

I for one don't see evolutionary biology as any basis for any type of ethical law. Evolution in nature is caused by natural circumstances, in all likelihood random.

Quote:

1. Including my own? What is to harm someone? Are you talking about ill intent? Even the worst intentions often lead to the most benefitial outcomes for the victim.

Not necessarily your own. To harm someone is to mutilate, deform, disable, or to cause unnecessary pain :wink: (pain that is unnecessary to the person's life or well-being).

Good effects may come out of bad intentions, but the action itself is wrong. Some developments have come out of war, but we don't call the war good.

Quote:

2. What are we to treat them as then? Most people see themselves as objects.

As non-expendable subjects worthy of consideration? Rolling Eyes

Those who see themselves as objects have a mistaken view, but of course their beliefs are up to them.

Quote:

3. Freedom is a choice. The oppressors' will must be met by the will to be oppressed or there can be no oppression. Chose to be free and you will be.

Choosing to be free or not, is a type of free action. However, if someone were to choose to be enslaved willingly, then the person has some form of mental disorders wouldn't you say? The oppressor however, would be at fault for accepting the terms of enslavement.

Some people can not fight the oppressor because of certain circumstances. It is really simple to say rise up against the government when you see your whole life at stake. Why are you blaming the fault on the victim, and not the oppressor?

Quote:

4. And who's to say what goes? How does this stop or contain anything?

A choice is ultimately up to the person making the choice. The choice itself however can be the wrong choice.

How does it not contain or stop anything? Be more specific and I'll answer, or you answer mine first and then I'll answer.

Quote:

5. We are most harmfull to ourselves. Our enemies are within us. You have the right to be free of harm if you have the ability to.

That is not necessarily true. Why don't you talk to the victims of atrocities.

Quote:

I don't know where I'm going with this except to say that I don't think your laws would change anything.

Laws would not change anything if noone follows them. These are laws of conduct derived from rational, moral reasoning and not laws of the state.

Lighten up Cyracuz. It's my theory in progress. Laughing

If you want to really challenge my ethical philosophy, challenge the basis.

0 Replies

I havn't read much of the above, so the following comments may be off track. I think the distinction between objective and subjective need not be taken as absolute. My moral inhibitions (both negative restraints and positive incentives) have been collectively and historically constructed by my social and cultural antecedents, and I have, with some modifications perhaps, internalized many of them. As such, they are both subjective (made up by my collective) and objective (they are both external to me and constraining upon me). I might make the distinction here between my cultural HERITAGE (all those values, mores, and strictures available to me from the past) and my cultural INHERITANCE (all those values, mores and strictures that I have effectively internalized).
To me it is irrelevant whether or not such moral are grounded in some metaphysical or theological foundation. They exist to serve some social and psychological functions regardless of their source or their ultimate justification.

0 Replies

Can morality be objective in a world without God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know