In comments on my post What is this Evil, Hugo has been trying to tell me that he, an atheist, has a moral base for how he lives that is objective in nature. Of course he is wrong. In fact I believe that in previous comments he's even said that he believes morality to be realitive to the situation. Either Hugo has changed his stance, which atheists can and do regularly, precisely because their morality is not objective or he's forgotten what he's said. Regardless, here's why he's wrong.
. If God does not exist, then objective morals, values and obligations (def. below) do not exist.
. But we know from our interactions with other people that objective morals, values and obligations DO exist. We know, and we know absolutely when someone does something “wrong” to us. We don’t have to wonder for one second what our community or society thinks about what the person did to us. We KNOW that we were wronged. We believe that objective morals exist at the moment that we’ve been wronged. So why does that point to God being the source of objective morals?
Just as physical laws are fully realised in the physical world, objective moral laws (Spiritual laws) are fully realised in Jesus and Father God. As I stated before, our daily interactions with others shows we know beyond doubt that objective moral order is as real and independent of our recognition as is the natural order of things. Our perceptions of natural and moral laws are givens of our experience.
. Objective moral Goodness and Obligations are based on God’s character. God’s commands are not arbitrary, for they are the inescapable expression of His Just and Loving nature. And, since our moral obligations are grounded in the Divine commands that come out of His Divine character, moral values and duties do not exist independent of God.
. What God commands or permits is good and what He forbids is wrong, bad, evil, self-destructive.
This is what it means for morality to be objective vs. subjective, selective or relative to the situation. Objective morality is not based on the individual’s character or personality or level of empathy, or that person’s likes or dislikes, sanity or insanity. Nor is it based on the ebb and flow of the community’s likes / dislikes etc..
Why choose God as opposed to you or me or Hitler?
God by definition is the least arbitrary stopping point, the least arbitrary point of final authority. That's what it means for morals to be objective. They have a grounding in a final and ultimate authority.
God doesn’t just exemplify goodness. He IS goodness.
God doesn't just exemplify justice. He IS Justice.
God doesn't just exemplify love. He IS love.
Almost everyone is willing to recognise an ultimate standard of goodness or at least authority. Atheists might choose the government or the community but it most often boils down to themselves. What do I want? What do I like? What do I think is best for me?
Choosing the individual as the ultimate standard of good and bad, right and wrong sets up obvious and irreconcilable issues of conflict.
Any moral construct (don’t rape, don’t discriminate etc.) that is "invented" or adopted by mankind and that is truly good for society, will BE good for society because it coheres with an objective moral principle that exists independently.
Objective means it is right and true regardless of whether you agree with it or obey it or even know that it exists. Again, “objective” (not arbitrary or relative) because it comes from the Ultimate source of Truth, Goodness, Justice and Love - our Creator.
If man-made moral constructs work across time and culture:
. They will work because they are objectively and ultimately right.
. They will work because they are based upon standards that are objectively and ultimately sound.
. They are objectively and ultimately sound because they originate from the character and command of our Creator who is the ultimate source of Truth, Goodness, Justice and Love.
The Christian base for objective morality is based on Truth. In our interaction with others, when wronged, you and I know in an instant that it's based upon Truth. Because it's based upon Truth it helps in the survival of the collective.
The stated atheist base for morality is based upon it's “perceived” ability to aid survival. In reality, the atheist base for morality is what will allow them to do what they want, get what they want. It may or may not work over time. It is something that will change with the ebb and flow of human desire, likes and dislikes, current ideology and the ability to meet our immediate need. As such, at any given time, it may or may not entail truth and therefore is not objective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh I had almost forgotten to this post concerning another fascinating subject!
ReplyDeleteFirst, I don't know what you used my name in this passage because that does not describe accurately my position:
Hugo has been trying to tell me that he, an atheist, has a moral base for how he lives that is objective in nature. Of course he is wrong. In fact I believe that in previous comments he's even said that he believes morality to be realitive to the situation. Either Hugo has changed his stance, which atheists can and do regularly, precisely because their morality is not objective or he's forgotten what he's said. Regardless, here's why he's wrong.
Yes my morality depends on the context, and so does yours, so the point is irrelevant.
You confuse an objective source, which I believe is impossible to even, with an objective basis. An objective basis simply means that it relies on something that is not opinion-based. That's why I mentioned 'life' and 'empathy' because they are two things defined not in terms of opinions but in terms of real objective things that exists.
Then, what you misunderstand too is that if morality comes from God, it is subjective! God decides what's moral or not, it is his opinion, thus it is, by definition, subjective.
If God cannot choose, then I don't know what you are talking about...
God doesn’t just exemplify goodness. He IS goodness.
ReplyDeleteGod doesn't just exemplify justice. He IS Justice.
God doesn't just exemplify love. He IS love.
Read the post. Objective morality is not based upon opinion. Nor does it change from year to year, people to people etc. God is unchanging and so to His commands.
What do you mean "empathy" isn't defined by opinion? Not long ago a Canadian Soldier was convicted of murder after shooting a wounded Taliban fighter. The soldier said he killed the man out of empathy. The court said "na ah!"
Maybe you should hire yourself out as an expert witness.
God doesn’t just exemplify goodness. He IS goodness.
ReplyDeleteGod doesn't just exemplify justice. He IS Justice.
God doesn't just exemplify love. He IS love.
Poetic but completely illogical...
Read the post.
Yes of course I had read the post. Unfortunately there were too many problems to address them all. Take this idea that when we have been wrong we know it absolutely, for example. That is purely subjective yet you use it to show that "objective morals, values and obligations DO exist"!
Objective morality is not based upon opinion. Nor does it change from year to year, people to people etc. God is unchanging and so to His commands.
Of course objective morality is not based upon opinion because that's the definition of objective... but if God were to choose what is moral or not, then it is his opinion. If he does not choose, then what did he do? That's the point. You cannot have it both ways.
You can define God in a poetic way by saying that he does not state what is just because he is justice incarnated, but that does not solve anything since you would still need to know what God consider to be part of the 'just' category or not, you would need to define it somehow, and that would be his opinion.
If, on the other hand, there is an objective definition for what is just that does not depend on God's opinion, and that God cannot change, then God is not the source of what justice is in this example. Consequently, God would not the source of morality and that does not fit well with your view either.
What do you mean "empathy" isn't defined by opinion?
First, I say that empathy is 'objective' or 'not dependant on opinions' in the sense that what empathy means is neutral, just like what happiness or sadness represent. You will surely agree that no matter what we think about it, there are words that represent what these things are and that the definition of empathy does not depend on our opinion. We can use other words to represent the same things perhaps, or even assign a different meaning for the same words at other times, but empathy is empathy no matter what we think about it: empathy is the biological/mental capability that humans have to understand what others feel, or might feel, according to a context. That definition is not mine or yours; it's objective. It's a bit hard to be perfectly clear on that; is it fine the way I just wrote it?
Therefore, when I say that I use empathy as an objective basis, I simply mean that my personal, subjective, morality system is based on a thing that can be objectively defined. This is why I am saying that, ironically, my morality that I consider subjective is actually closer to be objective than yours because you don't even have an objective base. Your base is God's opinion, which is subjective...
Not long ago a Canadian Soldier was convicted of murder after shooting a wounded Taliban fighter. The soldier said he killed the man out of empathy. The court said "na ah!"
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should hire yourself out as an expert witness.
That's actually a very good example!
First, it's obvious that the court could not say anything else but 'na ah' because he killed someone. He was not allowed to do it legally; case closed. However, I don't think that legal equals moral or that illegal equals immoral. Adultery is legal yet we agree that it's immoral just to name 1 example...
Second, was it moral for the soldier to shoot that Taliban? It's hard to answer quickly because I don't have enough information. What would help is being able to answer some questions like:
- Was the Taliban suffering insane pain?
- Was the Taliban going to die from his wounds soon?
- Did the Taliban express a desire to die?
- Was the Taliban in a state of mind that allowed him to make sound decisions?
Without a definite 'yes' to all these 4 questions, I don't see how the soldier's action could be moral. Even then though, I am still not convinced that it would be the moral thing to do since I am wondering how they could assess the severity of the wounds and if he was really going to die for sure or not.
From your point of view, the answer is simple right? No it's immoral because it's killing and God says it's bad. No need to think; what a relief!
But please prove me wrong... you do use your own logic and reason to come up with moral judgement. You certainly think about what God would want but to know what God wants I believe you simply use your own thoughts so it ends up being exactly the same!
“and that would be his opinion”
ReplyDeleteGod does define justice, many, many times. It’s often equated with mercy but it is not something that is unclear. God promises justice and He never breaks His promise. I’m balking at agreeing with you because of our tendency to see God’s “opinion” as being like our opinion; one that is subject to error and change.
Example: Because God is infinitely honest, deception is wrong. Now atheists use the example, and it’s a good example, of lying or deceiving to save someone’s life. We know, and we know absolutely when we’re deceiving someone for a good or selfish reason and we know (sometimes only in hindsight) when someone has deceived us for a good or selfish reason. Deception that does not also cohere with Love, or more specifically love your neighbour as yourself is objectively wrong.
=====
“If, on the other hand, there is an objective definition for what is just that does not depend on God's opinion, and that God cannot change, then God is not the source of what justice”
Certainly there are definitions of justice that we’ve made up and they most certainly do not cohere with the character, command / opinion of Creator God. For example, you know very well that there is one system of justice for the poor and another for the rich. There is one system of justice for people of “colour” and another for the whites. That is human “objective” justice.
=====
"Adultery is legal yet we agree that it's immoral just to name 1 example...”
But it is not immoral because Hugo and Rod think it is. There is going to come a time when more people will believe that adultery is not immoral. Then what? On what base will you have the right to tell those people that they’re wrong? My base is God whose very character is infinitely faithful, therefore His command / opinion is that unfaithfulness is wrong and that is why, unfaithfulness in ALL it’s forms, including lust, IS wrong. It’s an objective basis, a basis that is outside of, above, transcendent and superior to our own ability to decide.
=====
"- Was the Taliban suffering insane pain?
- Was the Taliban going to die from his wounds soon?
- Did the Taliban express a desire to die?
- Was the Taliban in a state of mind that allowed him to make sound decisions?"
If we’re to believe the soldier (which I don’t. I think he shot him just for the hell of it) he answered yes to all these questions and killed the man.
=====
“From your point of view, the answer is simple right? No it's immoral because it's killing and God says it's bad. No need to think; what a relief!”
Not true. Being objective does not equal absolute. But I do believe that if a person takes the time to assess the situation (and we rarely take or have the time to do this) s/he can know in h/her own heart whether what’s being done is right or not precisely because God has place objective morality within us. The closer a person is to a right relationship with God, the less time it takes to figure it out. The farther we are from a right relationship with God the longer it takes and it may in fact be impossible for this person to know or to figure out what is right. Like Hitler. He was so far from God that I think he actually believed that ridding the earth of Jews, homosexuals and other so-called misfits was the right thing to do. Just like Al Stefanelli, Georgia State Director of American Atheists thinks that getting rid of Christians is the right thing to do.
=====
"I believe you simply use your own thoughts so it ends up being exactly the same!"
Because I know how fallible my thoughts and opinions have been and are, I try as much as possible to simply follow what God says. He never lies. He is completely trustworthy.
We don't need God to define the word 'justice'. The word is meaningful by itself and the definition is objective regardless of God existing or not. That's why it's only poetic to say that God is Justice (same for all the other examples you used). Even if his opinion were to be labelled as a 'special divine opinion' because he is flawless, it's still God using his mind to decide what fits, or not, under the category of 'justice', not the other way around. It is subjective. He does not define justice itself, he is not justice itself; if you want him to be, you just end up applying a weird label to a god concept which is already vaguely defined (immaterial, spiritual in nature, infinite x and y,...), not convincing at all, and not even useful anyway. It makes God impossible to even exist.
ReplyDeleteMoving on...The jumbo-mumbo expression you keep using, "...We know, and we know absolutely when we’re..." does not make it objective, or absolute, whatever you call it. You say we know, thus that's subjective. Case closed.
There is nothing absolute about it because you cannot know exactly how everybody would react to the same conditions, because it depends on the context and their personal feelings. You can do your best to understand them, and that's because you are capable of empathy... a term, with an objective definition, used to describe this capacity of understanding others.
At best, you can say that God is infinite empathy, since you throw infinite left and right anyway. It would make sense because God is supposed to be omniscient so he does know how everybody feels about everything. So he knows what is supposed to be just every time. Does that make it objective? No! Don't you see why? God allows people free will and give them their own opinion and likes/dislikes, so every one of us is our own little ultimate authority on what appears just to us, when we are the target of an act that can, or cannot, be just.
You try to follow God's authority as much as you can and I understand that. From your point of view, it makes perfect sense to follow the will of your God. However, you don't follow something objective because you don't follow 'justice' itself, you simply try to find out what your God considers just because he does not make mistake. Following 'justice' itself is what everybody who actually wants to do something 'just' does. No need to ask God, but we are all prone to mistakes... Again, by trying to put God's perfect knowledge with the definition of justice together, you are trying to have it both ways at the same time. You try to blend together a definition, something objective, with an opinion, which is subjective by definition. That's logically wrong.
Finally, you placed the nail in the coffin of objective morality yourself by expressing this:
ReplyDeleteBeing objective does not equal absolute. But I do believe that if a person takes the time to assess the situation (and we rarely take or have the time to do this) s/he can know in h/her own heart whether what’s being done is right or not precisely because God has place objective morality within us.
Nobody has the same inner sense of morality. There are so many factors involve that pretending we have an inner sense of morality divinely implemented in us is a gross simplification that spits in the face of both biological and sociological sciences. That's actually why you have to keep denying human evolution, at least in part, because it explains a large chunk of this inner morality you believe in. You also have to deny mental illnesses that prevent some humans from being moral; or the fact that some religious doctrines make people do atrocities without a bit of remorse because their god told them to, just to name 2 examples.
Most importantly, you contradict your own idea that we are sinful in nature and only tend to destroy ourselves and others! Sure, you'll come up with some rationalization about how we still know what's really good, we still know what we should do but we don't want to, etc... But in the end, you just refuse to see that life is complex and that we are influenced by our society, our culture, our parents, our friends and our own personal choices, nothing divine, nothing supernatural, nothing magic. It's your belief in God that makes you 'you'. It's not God himself because God is imaginary, remember?