"Objective" morality?

[Strelok]

If a theistic religious persons morality is claimed to come from the God that they worship as an objective source of morality - I contest to a few things:

A. There is no proof for God, hence it's a matter of faith.
B. Likewise there is no proof that you have an objective source for morality.
C. Hence your source of morality still may come from flawed men.
D. For example, if a Christian uses the Bible as their source of morality and they do not contest to what it says - you're following it objectively (though this can be contested since you first have to interpret the words) but you don't know if the source is objective.
E. Hence it's a matter of faith for this, too.
F. There no evidence that a theistic religious morality is superior to mine or if it is objective. I make up my own morality that focuses on making my actions as victimless as possible.

Thoughts? Counters? Agreements? TLDR? My face is ugly hence my argument is invalid?

[Elfdude]

Don't forget that few christians quote the same objective morality or interpret it the same way. Even within denominations each person has their own interpretation drastically changing which actions are permissible, moral or detestable. Objective morality is pretty hard to defend.

[Ardruire Iacób]

Replace God in the argument with scientific truth and you still have similar problems, even if there is an objective nature to anything, we as humans are naturally subjective and would interpret the objectivity our own way. Unless of course, you can somehow acquire a Veil of Ignorance.

[Time Commander Bob]

Replace God in the argument with scientific truth and you still have similar problems, even if there is an objective nature to anything, we as humans are naturally subjective and would interpret the objectivity our own way. Unless of course, you can somehow acquire a Veil of Ignorance.

This is true but many modern scientific theories (in physics anyway) have adapted to this by placing great emphasis on the observer. Anything that is defined to be completely independent of the observer is impossible to justify, which also includes some ideas of objective morality.

[Ardruire Iacób]

This is true but many modern scientific theories (in physics anyway) have adapted to this by placing great emphasis on the observer. Anything that is defined to be completely independent of the observer is impossible to justify, which also includes some ideas of objective morality.

Somewhat akin to Critical Realism, then?

[Strelok]

There is a difference between faith and belief, however.

Though I agree that everything comes down to convictions and not certainty, there is more evidence that I have a table beside me than that God exists, for example. Believing in God would be a matter of faith, believing that a table is there is belief, there is at least some evidence to support it, is there not? Our five sense are what we have to try to define some sort of reality and we can also build with a consensus and the science within our world to say that if 49 people see the table and one person doesn't, it is more likely that one person is at fault.

[Arch-hereticK]

Vindication through popularity is no way to establish morality.

[Strelok]

Vindication through popularity is no way to establish morality.

I don't think anyone in this topic suggested it was. Is this a statement or is this a reply to someone?

[Arch-hereticK]

Our five sense are what we have to try to define some sort of reality and we can also build with a consensus and the science within our world to say that if 49 people see the table and one person doesn't, it is more likely that one person is at fault.

I don't think anyone in this topic suggested it was. Is this a statement or is this a reply to someone?

You were explaining the difference between faith and belief, I was making the assumtion that it was directly related to morality.

But on the other hand (in direct contradiction to what I just said) morality is basically a creed enforced by a power majority, which does mean that morality/instinct of reciprosity can only be established through popularity and vindicated by the success of that social group.

[Strelok]

You were explaining the difference between faith and belief, I was making the assumtion that it was directly related to morality.

Whoops. I can see how that could be easily interpreted as such. I was talking in general about trying to define reality. Morality I would view as a bit different, but we do build a consensus on some things with morality. I.E, I think it is likely that over 50% of Human beings in first world countries would agree that killing would be "wrong". Morality serves the race well, it serves the whole race and even selfish individuals well.

[Lupu]

My morality is better than yours!

[Ardruire Iacób]

Morality isn't in reality, it's in actuality! (Given as it is an intangible construct [though, of course, objective morality would be in reality]) I think. Wait, let me go check my papers on Critical Realism....

[MaximiIian]

If a theistic religious persons morality is claimed to come from the God that they worship as an objective source of morality - I contest to a few things

I actually agree with these statements. I don't think an objective moral system should be based on something so subjective as faith. Yes, I have certain beliefs that are dependent on faith, but I don't expect others to hold the same beliefs or interpret things the same was as me. An objective system is, as it says, something that is applicable, or at least should be, regardless of subjective experience and beliefs.

I think that the ethic of reciprocity is the kind of objective system we're looking for. It seems simple and universal enough, and doesn't have to come from a deity for us to figure it out and apply it. Not only is it good, but it works.

[Ardruire Iacób]

I actually agree with these statements. I don't think an objective moral system should be based on something so subjective as faith. Yes, I have certain beliefs that are dependent on faith, but I don't expect others to hold the same beliefs or interpret things the same was as me. An objective system is, as it says, something that is applicable, or at least should be, regardless of subjective experience and beliefs.

I think that the ethic of reciprocity is the kind of objective system we're looking for. It seems simple and universal enough, and doesn't have to come from a deity for us to figure it out and apply it. Not only is it good, but it works.

The Golden Rule is not objective or universal, not everyone wants to be treated the exact same and it is entirely predicated on the idea that all people have the same desires.

[MaximiIian]

The Golden Rule is not objective or universal, not everyone wants to be treated the exact same and it is entirely predicated on the idea that all people have the same desires.

You're looking at it the wrong way, then. It is not predicated on people having the same desires; it is predicated on people wanting to be treated fairly (not necessarily equally; there's a difference). Treating others in a completely unfair way, e.g. abusing or manipulating people, would be immoral, because certainly you wouldn't want to be abused and manipulated unduly.
It's not so much "do to others as you want them to do to you", as it "don't do to others as you don't want them to do to you".

[Hounf of Culan]

Just in response to point F mainly, if we get to make up our own moralities then it is impossible to say there is anything like right and wrong. Murder would be no more condemnable then enjoying a day at the pool. All you are left with is what you like/dislike but there is no basis for anything beyond that.

[Scorch]

I would like to throw into the mix here the idea that objective morality, even as a theistic construct, only exists insofar as it is a reflection of the biological and scientific realities of the human race and its existence. Theism merely mirrors several ideas of morality that are more universal than others (shalt not kill and steal and a couple of other ideas) that came about due to humanity's engagement with the realities of its existence.

Those concepts of morality that have a deeper root in such biological and scientific realities are the ones that will survive for longer periods of time and are the ones that people most often label 'objective', whereas those that are established by discourse more separate to this are the ones that are more fluid and have broken down over time.

[Strelok]

That mainly applies to when you are talking about it in an objective sense. I condemn murder. A lot of people do. I still recognize our morality as not being objective. I also believe morality is relative, too. It goes into a matter of biology and hence also with evolution as you can observe a group of (apparently) non-sentient species who refrain from killing each other. More specifically mother or fathers, or their immediate families. or how the parents protect their child in such a thorough manner. Killing each other relentlessly reduces the survival of our race. Empathy for total strangers and other species is a more evolved sense of morality.

If anyone is interested, my moral convictions are based on two primary things:

The main thing: Calculating the repercussions and victims of my actions.
Secondary: This would be to believe in assertive actions that improve the life of someone else at either the expense of the quality of my life, or simply not regarding myself.

A lot of peoples morality that I observe in first world countries share similarities to what my moral convictions are. Different situations I go through will press my moral convictions much harder than generalizations. I.E, that story in New Orleans where a hospital ran out of power, food and medical supplies and you could only ration to specific people and you have to make a judgement on who is more worth saving or increasing a chance of saving, etc. Specifics become hard. Even if it is proven that the morality in the Christian Bible for example actually comes from God, they don't have any specific instructions on how to "objectively" make decisions like the one above.

[Arch-hereticK]

Morality "given" by authority isn't objective, theistic morality is no different.

[Scorch]

That mainly applies to when you are talking about it in an objective sense. I condemn murder. A lot of people do. I still recognize our morality as not being objective. I also believe morality is relative, too. It goes into a matter of biology and hence also with evolution as you can observe a group of (apparently) non-sentient species who refrain from killing each other. More specifically mother or fathers, or their immediate families. or how the parents protect their child in such a thorough manner. Killing each other relentlessly reduces the survival of our race. Empathy for total strangers and other species is a more evolved sense of morality.

Yes exactly. Had humanity not developed concepts whereby the indiscriminate murder of others within society was considered wrong, it, as a species, would not have survived. It reflects, as I said, the biological realities of our existence. We see concepts such as this emerge extremely early in humanity's existence and this is because it is based on humanities interaction and engagement with said biological realities as opposed to discourse and cultural imposition.

This morality is not necessarily objective, but these ideas have stayed with humanity as long as they have because the biological realities that they reflect are. However those ideas that are founded more in roots of discourse and cultural/societal dialogue are the ones that break down and break away as they are based on things that are not so objective.

At the heart of it, theism is not the source of any of those morals based on scientific realities, merely a reflection. It should not be applauded for saying 'thou shalt not kill' as if people had not worked out this was a bad idea before 2,000BC; if they hadn't worked that out already over the past 5 million years of evolutionary progression without religion then humanity would not exist.