Monday, September 12, 2011

Objective Morality

You may know that there is a disagreement on whether or not Morality is objective. This depends on what we mean by "morality". The truth is that many people just assume everyone they talk to understand what "morality" is without qualification or extrapolation, however I have found this not to be the case. While some people do try to define it such a way to define "morality" to avoid the idea of an objective morality couched in a consciousness outside of humanity. Ryan Anderson has recently issued the following challenge:

I'll take it you can't demonstrate that morals exist objectively.
But, you should make sure you differentiate between a "moral fact" as in "something that exists objectively, metaphysically in the absence of any consciousnesses" and "moral fact" as in "something we all (mostly) agree to". Good luck (chuckle...)


The problem is that we need to define terms. I would argue that there is no morality in the absence of any consciousness. When Christian theists say morality is objective, that is not what we mean. Objective Morality is independent of the human consciousness. It is objective with respect to those who live under it. It is true no matter the opinion of those living under it. As long as those who live under it decide what is right and wrong, then you have question as to what is right or wrong and who has the right to determine that. A "moral fact" dependent solely on what we agree on means nothing because we can't all agree - and never will. How do you know you are right and those you disagree with are wrong?

Without an objective standard, how do you know tell? Anderson is trying the old Atheist tactic to get out of the force of the moral argument for the existence of God by arguing that a morality that God is not subjected to is no absolute standard and morality without a consciousness is a logical contradiction. However this argument is truly silly. In order for morality to be objective for human being it merely has to be true independently of us. That morality is the standard by which we will be judged against by our maker whether or not we agree to be judged by that standard. That morality is based on God's character and by which He says.  If we base morality on what most of us agree on then it's only relative with respect to one another.

Often times attempt to define morality apart from God lead to basing it one of four ideas or utilitarianism or some combination of them:
a. Beneficience
b. Non-Maleficience
c. Respect for Autonomy
d. Justice.

The problem is that even the most ardent skeptic admits his or her own finitude and being prone to making mistakes. Given this inescapable conclusion, why would anyone think they know what is best for any given person in any given situation? Or how would we know what justice is when often times we are merely blinded by our own self-interest?  The "respect for autonomy" part really amuses me because where does it end and what does it mean? Does it end when one person's autonomy is misused to hurt others? Who decides when that is? What happens when you disagree?

It is an example of extreme hubris to think that just because we can't think of any reason why God would allow reality to work out as it has that there isn't a reason.  That is arguing in the gaps of your ignorance. God is not subjected to Morality. How can you be limited by what you have decreed? There is no dilemma. here. IF there is a God then Morality is grounded in his consciousness. Without God, there is no consciousness in which to explain what Morality is or where it comes from. All we have is our own predilections and preferences without God. And who's to say yours are better than mine when we disagree? The fact that we will disagree on some points is a given.

Here is the bottom line: when I, as a Christian theist, argue that there exists a objective morality, based on God, I am not saying that God is limited or subjected to that standard. This is not saying that God can or does anything against that standard. God follows those standards because they are based on who God is. Anytime it seems like God has commanded anything that goes against that standard, one of two things is true: either we didn't understand the command or we don't understand the standard as well as we like to pretend we do. In addition, we need to keep in mind that the Bible is God's revelation of that standard. And looking into it there is more than enough about that standard that I would not have come up with on my own. And neither would you. I will discuss this more in an upcoming post about a study that suggests that when people think they are following God's commands, they are really only doing what they want to do.

Enhanced by Zemanta

21 comments:

  1. I would argue that there is no morality in the absence of any consciousness.

    Objective Morality is independent of the human consciousness.

    Which is it? Is a word missing from one of those two sentences? To help clarify, answer this hypothetical yes/no question, if no humans exist (whatever scenario you like, supernovae, nuclear war, plague, planet killing meteor, etc.), would it then be wrong to torture babies for fun, and why? Or put it another way, if "torture", "babies" and "fun" can't exist, is it wrong to torture babies for fun and why? Feel free to expand, but commit to a yes/no answer first. And try to actually make an argument this time...

    Anderson is trying the old Atheist tactic to get out of the force of the moral argument for the existence of God by arguing that a morality that God is not subjected to is no absolute standard and morality without a consciousness is a logical contradiction.

    What in the world are you trying to say here?? In any case, I don't think that's my argument, although how would I be able to tell...

    In order for morality to be objective for human being it merely has to be true independently of us.

    This is true statement, and this is what I was asking you to demonstrate, now demonstrate that it actually the case that morality is independent of us. Nice try, but with this piece, all you've done is lament that if god doesn't exist then we can't say something is right or wrong with absolute authority in every situation. Whining about something is not mounting an argument.

    I will discuss this more in an upcoming post about a study that suggests that when people think they are following God's commands, they are really only doing what they want to do.

    Good, can't wait to watch you further unintentionally dismantle the idea of objective morality.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Which is it? Is a word missing from one of those two sentences? To help clarify, answer this hypothetical yes/no question, if no humans exist (whatever scenario you like, supernovae, nuclear war, plague, planet killing meteor, etc.), would it then be wrong to torture babies for fun, and why? Or put it another way, if "torture", "babies" and "fun" can't exist, is it wrong to torture babies for fun and why? Feel free to expand, but commit to a yes/no answer first. And try to actually make an argument this time...


    Objective Morality is independent of human consciousness because it's grounded in God's consciousness. And God is independent of us. It is wrong to torture babies for fun because it's against God's character and nature.

    This is true statement, and this is what I was asking you to demonstrate, now demonstrate that it actually the case that morality is independent of us. Nice try, but with this piece, all you've done is lament that if god doesn't exist then we can't say something is right or wrong with absolute authority in every situation. Whining about something is not mounting an argument.

    So you agree that without God there is no right or wrong. Thank you. So now you have to explain why you think it's wrong\

    Good, can't wait to watch you further unintentionally dismantle the idea of objective morality.

    Yes, I know you are hanging off of every word I write. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So you agree that without God there is no right or wrong. Thank you. So now you have to explain why you think it's wrong to torture babies and why people who disagree with you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Objective Morality is independent of human consciousness because it's grounded in God's consciousness.

    Assert assert assert!!! Can you demonstrate this is the case?

    So now you have to explain why you think it's wrong to torture babies and why people who disagree with you are wrong.

    See my comment about only answering questions one bazillion times before I start ignoring them. Search your own blog...

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't have to prove the existence of God. The point of the post is that God is needed to ground morality.

    And I keep hoping that you would be honest about the fact that you have nothing to back up your belief that it's wrong to torture babies. You have said more than once that you have no standing to condemn the Nazis, for example. It's worse than that. Any pleading for social justice or moral value amounts to just plain and basic whining because there is no reason to pay attention to you if there is no objective standard.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't have to prove the existence of God. The point of the post is that God is needed to ground morality.

    Of course you do.

    You have said more than once that you have no standing to condemn the Nazis, for example.

    Never said that, cite your sources...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here is the deal. You can't ground morality as you have. You wrote . I "feel" that x is right or wrong. Someone else feels that they disagree. Luckily we have a society were we agree to collectively agree on the rules. on the post

    You seem to be so oblivious to the fact that this worldview leads to no standing in condemning anything as wrong or immoral. Instead you commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

    So because human consciousness is not enough to ground anything as wrong because we can't agree on it and it requires assuming that some group's opinions are more important or more correct than others. I'm not willing to be that arrogant.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That post was at http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/01/arrogant-christianity-mp3-audio-by-tom.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. You seem to be so oblivious to the fact that this worldview leads to no standing in condemning anything as wrong or immoral.

    Seriously, this has been addressed, a bazillion times, and is now being ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  10. For the record, you've not demonstrate that moral values exist objectively.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Seriously, this has been addressed, a bazillion times, and is now being ignored.

    Correction: You've waffled. You've dodged. You have not adequately given an answer that you should logically and consistently accept. Appealing to public opinion that will change over time (and not always for the best) does not explain right and wrong or the source.

    For the record, you've not demonstrate that moral values exist objectively.

    It's impossible without God. That's the point. Otherwise you have "might make right" and "majority rules". If you are happy with that, more power to you. Weak and pathetic of course, but you are welcomed to it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Otherwise you have "might make right" and "majority rules".

    Think deep, what do we actually see in reality?

    Now "should" that be the case? That's another discussion, but "should" is a human construct.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Think deep, what do we actually see in reality?

    That is a question you should answer yourself? Because that is not what we have in all and every case.

    Now "should" that be the case? That's another discussion, but "should" is a human construct.

    If "Might-makes-right" "should" be the case then you have no reason to complain about evil or injustice.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Because that is not what we have in all and every case.

    You've not traveled much, have you?

    ReplyDelete
  15. You've not traveled much, have you?

    So you think that every where on the planet that the weak always abuses the strong? No where do guilty people get punished?

    Naive much?

    I never said the weak is being oppressed doesn't happen, but we know that it's wrong when it does especially when it's you getting the short end of the stick.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So you think that every where on the planet that the weak always abuses the strong? No where do guilty people get punished?

    ????

    ReplyDelete
  17. Apologies I meant:

    So you think that every where on the planet that the weak is always abused by the strong and No where do guilty people get punished for their crimes?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think everywhere on the planet those with power rule. Not sure what punishment of the guilty has to do with anything at all.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think everywhere on the planet those with power rule. Not sure what punishment of the guilty has to do with anything at all.

    That's not what I was talking about. Do you know what "oppression" is?

    Punishment of the guilty has everything to do with keeping people who would break moral standards in line and shows the nature of morality.

    ReplyDelete
  20. That's not what I was talking about.

    I'm not sure you know what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm not sure you know what you are talking about.

    I am sure you have no idea what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete