Tisthammerw wrote:


... there are no objective or universally valid moral principles, for all moral judgments are simply a matter of human opinion (e.g. the culture or individual).

Tisthammerw wrote:


I should point out that I have stated very specifically and repeatedly (see for instance post #213) that I am not arguing for divine command theory (whereby morality is based on God's commands as opposed to e.g. his nature). The argument from morality (objective morality having its metaphysical basis in God) is not necessarily the same thing as divine command theory.

Incidentally, what does "OP" stand for?

mric wrote:

(OP = Original Post)

You also say that this objective morality, which is based in God, commands our behaviour.

Given that commanding things requires communication, and that you are claiming that God is not commanding us, could you explain how these moral commands are made known?

If the answer is 'by moral intuition' (as you have previously suggested), then we end up with the uncomfortable position that this so-called moral objectivism has, in principle, no way of deciding pretty much any moral question, since there are almost no universal moral intuitions

Tisthammerw - are you comfortable that your approach also concludes that we have no mechanisms available to identify any of the moral absolutes that we take as the premise of the argument?

Makarismos wrote:

If we cannot in principal know that moral codes are objectively correct

Tisthammerw wrote:

Ethics is an example of something that says what ought to be. Specifically, it makes certain commands and statements of how people ought to behave. In doing so, objective morality somehow possesses authority behind its statements. Authority is “power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior.� (Merriam-Webster's dictionary, definition 2a.) Objective ethical statements such as “We should not torture people for fun� do indeed command our behavior. Additionally, the authority of morality (however it exists) seems supreme; it transcends what anyone (e.g. Hitler) thinks about how people ought to behave.

All of this raises some questions on morality’s source and metaphysical basis. Given that there are certain commands (ethical ones) that have an authority transcending what humanity says, thinks, and feels; how is this possible? What is morality's transcendent source of authority? If morality is not dependent on what people think, then what fundamental reality says how we ought to behave? Or perhaps it is better to combine the last two questions. If morality is not dependent on what people think, what transcendent source of authority says how we ought to behave? How can morality contain this supreme authority behind its statements?

Theism provides an explanation for all this. Morality’s transcendent source of authority is the heart of God. By definition, God is the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality transcending all else. So if objective moral values were grounded in the heart of God they would reside in a metaphysical basis of supreme authority in the universe. On this view, it is within God (e.g. his nature and essence of what he is) where objective morality commands our behaviour and is how morality has its transcendent authority. In contrast, atheism provides no source for morality and no explanation for its existence. Whereas the existence of God explains why moral values transcend humanity. It also explains why some should-statements are matters of personal taste and why others are not. It may be then that God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values.

Probably the best objection to this argument is that objective morality is a "brute fact" not requiring any further explanation for its existence. Objective morality has no source or metaphysical basis; it just is.

But this has potential problems. Consider this argument. If objective morality has literally no source and no basis, then there is literally nothing that says Hitler was wrong when he believed he should slaughter millions of Jews.

Here some might object, saying that is not what they mean by objective morality being a brute fact. It is reality that says Hitler’s actions are wrong. Reality—unlike fallible humans—cannot be mistaken about what is right, and it is reality in some general sense that says what ought to be. It’s just that there isn’t any specific component of the universe (as a person or culture) that says it’s wrong, but rather the universe itself.

By attributing the universe with supreme metaphysical authority over right and wrong above us mortals, this would by definition be accepting some form of pantheism. A more general definition of God is “the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality.� Pantheism is simply equating God with the universe/reality/existence (it should be noted that some of the traditional aspects of God—like omnipotence and consciousness—are not necessarily associated with pantheism). Pantheism may seem like a relatively harmless implication, but even if we accept the most atheistic form of pantheism, this God would by necessity possess several interesting characteristics.

This pantheistic God might not contain consciousness but would have to possess supremely transcendent moral authority (transcending all peoples and cultures) while also possessing perfect moral correctness (it cannot be mistaken about what is right). Since a pantheistic God is equated with the universe/reality/existence, this supreme metaphysical reality is omnipresent and eternal. This is perhaps to be expected however, given that objective morality commands our behavior regardless of where we are and when we are.

Interestingly, this pantheistic God must also be incorporeal if objective morality is not dependent on collections of atoms.

Suppose for instance we took everything away from the physical universe except Mount Rushmore. Would Mount Rushmore be the source of objective moral values? No, moral values are incorporeal and their underlying basis (the supreme metaphysical reality that says what ought to be) must also be incorporeal.

Yet a God that is transcendent, eternal, omnipresent, incorporeal and perfectly moral is treading awfully close to theism. Not to mention a moral God sounds an awful lot like a person—a moral God that says what everyone ought to do and a God that everyone ought to obey.

So even if it’s not an outright proof, to the very least the existence of objective morality still provides strong evidence for theism (by suggesting the existence of a God that is transcendent, omnipresent, perfectly moral etc.).

Tisthammerw wrote:

This may come as a surprise, but many (and I suspect most) intuitively believe in objective morality (just as they intuitively believe in an objective physical world). This even holds true for some atheists.

Tisthammerw wrote:
Yes, but the truth does not depend on what people think (e.g. if everyone thought the Earth was flat...)

This is perhaps true, but it is irrelevant. Objective morality still commands our behavior.

Bear in mind that the differences here were primarily in belief systems, not values. Antisemitism occurs because of the (mistaken) belief that Jews are somehow evil people; likewise Christians were at times seen to be a threat to society.

I disagree. People's disagreement does not imply that we cannot know whether something is true. Some people disbelieve the Holocaust. They're still (objectively) wrong.

This is getting off topic (it doesn't address the deductive validity of the argument) but for now I'll grant some leeway.

Consider the physical world: there are objective truths about it that are independent of what people think, e.g. if everyone thought the Earth was flat it would still be round. How do people come to know objective truth? Sensory perceptions. How do they know sensory perceptions are ever reliable? It's something they intuitively recognize.

Yes, but the truth does not depend on what people think (e.g. if everyone thought the Earth was flat...)

I agree. Fortunately my argument doesn't do that. I should point out that even some atheists believe that objective morality exists.

This may come as a surprise, but many (and I suspect most) intuitively believe in objective morality (just as they intuitively believe in an objective physical world). This even holds true for some atheists

Because by definition that's what it does; it says how we ought to behave. Remember the point I've been arguing however: if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God. Do you dispute this claim? If so, where does the reasoning of my argument break down (if indeed it does break down).

The definitions of the terms involved. "Social morality" (from what I can guess) is people's beliefs of what people ought to do. Objective morality is a set of truths of what people really ought to to do. There is a difference between X and what people believe about X.

Of course, then there's the issue of how we can tell what is actually morally correct versus what people believe is morally correct. But that is a subject for a different thread and has no bearing on the deductive validity of my argument. (My argument depends on objective morality existing but is silent as to how one may discover moral truths.)

Of course it doesn't clarify my argument because I was addressing something off-topic; explaining why people have different and sometimes incorrect beliefs about morality really has nothing to do with the validity of my argument.

As I said though, all of this is beside the point. How about my actual argument? If objective moral values exist would they provide evidence for the existence of God? If not, then what transcendent source of authority says how we ought to behave? If you think my argument is invalid, please explain where the argument breaks down.

It is. For instance, do you really think that Jews are greedy evil people that should be wiped out for the good of humanity? Do you really think the blood libel (in which Jews allegedly used the blood of Christian children for e.g. food) of the Middle Ages and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are historical fact? Or do you believe--as modern historians do--that such things are myths?

The truth of the Holocaust happening is "objective" in that its truth is not dependent on what humans think, feel, or believe (that's what it means for something to be objectively true). One cannot rationally say, "The fact of the Holocaust is true for you but not for me." The Holocaust happened even if antisemites brainwashed everybody to think otherwise.

What my argument does not do is "Why should we believe in objective morals? Because God exists. Why should we believe God exists? Because of objective morals." My argument only involves the latter two sentences and takes for granted the existence of objective morality. That even some atheists can believe in objective morality means one doesn't have to presuppose the existence of God to believe in the basic premise (that objective moral values exist). That was my point.

I agree (I think atheism is irrational, after all) but this doesn't change the point I was making here. Again, please take into account the contexts of the quotes.

Again, the point was that one does not have to presuppose God to believe in objective morality. One can intuitively accept the existence of objective morality without reference to any deity.

Another point to repeat: all of this is beside the point. How about my actual argument? If objective moral values exist would they provide evidence for the existence of God? If not, then what transcendent source of authority says how we ought to behave? If you think my argument is invalid, please explain where the argument breaks down.

Strange, I was thinking the same thing about you. For instance you have often not addressed the argument regarding the claim I've been making here: that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God. Do you think this is true? If not, where does the reasoning of my argument break down?

Actually it was "How do we know that it is an objective morality that commands our behavior." I was trying to say that objective morality commands human behavior by definition.

Because by definition that's what it does; it says how we ought to behave. Remember the point I've been arguing however: if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God. Do you dispute this claim? If so, where does the reasoning of my argument break down (if indeed it does break down).

Fine, but you avoided my question. Now can you understand why I was thinking you were "adept at avoiding parts of this discussion"?

I’m not (in this thread) really here to argue whether objective moral values exist, because I don’t think we’ll get anywhere on that topic. If for instance you think there is nothing morally wrong with the Holocaust, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that, because I can’t think of a better reduction ad absurdum against metaethical competitors of moral objectivism.

Because I have already answered that question and I've already offered such evidence, remember? Post #228? You didn't find it convincing, and for the moment I don't have a better argument.

As I said though, all of this is beside the point. How about my actual argument? If objective moral values exist would they provide evidence for the existence of God? If not, then what transcendent source of authority says how we ought to behave?

Speaking from a terminology approach, I would say you do not quite understand what it means for an argument to be deductively valid. In logic, an argument is deductively valid when if the premises are true then the conclusion is true also. A deductively invalid argument is where you can have true premises but a false conclusion.

If objective moral values exist, they are evidence for the existence of God.

Objective moral values exist

Therefore:
they are evidence for the existence of God.

This is a deductive argument. Is it a valid argument? If not, where does the reasoning break down?

Huh? I was referring to objective in the standard epistemological sense (i.e. that something is true independent of what we humans think). I wasn't at all talking about an individual being objective in the sense of being free from prejudices.

I'm really not sure what you mean by this. "Its a sitting duck." It's an easy position to attack? "...defines that we get a moral position in this way." What moral position in what way? Or perhaps you did not mean moral position but instead meant something like "defines that morality would imply God's existence?"

TMB wrote:



Reread my earlier responses.

I did answer, although I framed external issues that I think disqualify the validity and value of your argument. I could not understand how an argument can be valid if the assumption has not been sufficiently validated. However, let me expand upon my view of this.

You have created a model underpinned with an assumption that is shaky at best, and toally unsupported at worst.

You then add another assumption when you define that OM commands our behavior.

This theoretical model with these beginnings you impose upon the real world. It is one thing to operate your principle in a bubble, and another when you then use it to make judgment and draw conclusions externally. How do you justify this transition?

OM is a quite different concept to other things usually described as objective, ie. reality itself. Despite our subjective senes and interpretaion of, we are able to project that an objective reality exists in terms of physical objects like other living things, the cosmos, minerals and so on. However, concepts like beauty or morality appear to only exist through our own projection and perceptions, and cannot exist without the human mind. This is also not the same as other non physical concepts like anger or love, that can be seen to exist objectively (and separate to humanity).

If we are to consider morality as something external and independent to humans how exactly do we do this without invoking something transcendent like God? Regardless of anything transcendent, we should be able to describe and define it as something external. The challenge with morality appears to be its implicit integration with religion and God, and their origins as belief based concepts, and not based upon reason. Does that leave us able to directly identify an morality as an external reality, and then qualify it as providing proof of a God as you are attempting? I doubt it.

You have started the other way around and assumed the existence of OM, then attempting deductive logic to assist in proving the existence of God. Within the narrow confines of the statements

, you can probably get by with this, but you invalidate this when you attempt to apply a theoretical model with an unproven (and perhaps unprovable) assumptions into the real world.

However since the implicit existence of God is the very reason we cling to OM in the first place

My above clarification gives a more direct answer as to why I think this is not valid deductive logic.

You have misread my previous post. Like you I do believe there is something morally wrong with the Holocaust, but I consider this to be a relative and subjective moral position

You might think public nudity is morally wrong and I do not, in this case our relative moralities differ (so we can agree to disagree), but we are in agreement on the moral wrong of the Holocaust.

For a moment, why do you just not assume that you know nothing? You can then start with a clean sheet and gather evidence and make a judgment. If your argument is the best you have got, why not consider ignorance to be a good starting point to find answers to knowing reality?

BTW, post 228 does not seem to be the argument to validate OM, did you provide the wrong post number?

I suggest we lose the buzzwords and just talk about what is supported by evidence and logic.

Your last point is the issue I have with your approach. You are the one to have defined that OM commands our behavior, now you are asking which transcendent authority is commanding this? Why not avoid making this assumptive definition and then you wont get this problematic question?

If you are so determined on getting the above accepted, why not do this yourself? Why do you need others to validate your position?

Let us suppose it is, and then let us see if it is useful in order to further our knowledge of reality. Do you think it does?

Perhaps I am missing something.

You have asked me what I thought (as a human) and then you tell me you wanted something independent of what humans think.

What I meant that if you build the argument in this way it will surely prove just what you want it to.

The answer you seek is implicit in the starting assumption. Because transcendent beings have been prescribers of behavior, from which morality is derived, if you turn it around and assume OM, then proving a God is easy.