Having trouble sleeping?
Keep reading!
I was asked to write about objective morality.
I know…
…you’re feeling drowsy already.
Me too.
I’m gonna drink some coffee and soldier on!
Morality is not usually controversial.
Most of us take it for granted that some things are “right” and some things are “wrong”.
Most of us…
Godless people are different.
They think morality is fluid.
“Right” and “wrong” depends on your circumstances.
There are exceptions to every moral rule.
For example:
Stealing is “wrong” EXCEPT when you need to survive.
This is called “Moral Relativism”.
It is the opposite of “Objective Morality”.
Objective Morality says:
Stealing is wrong.
(Note the period at the end of the statement.)
Morals with exceptions are useless.
Now, before you drift away into blissful unconsciousness, read this statement:
Please consider going Vegan or at least Vegetarian. Love All Animals the same. All Lives are Precious.
Brings a tear to your eye, doesn’t it?
Let’s break it down into a series of ‘relative morality’ statements.
Please consider going Vegan or at least Vegetarian EXCEPT when you love the taste of steak.
Love all animals the same EXCEPT when you’re choosing between human beings and cows.
All lives are precious EXCEPT those which haven’t passed from the womb.
Do you see what happened?
…HEY…WAKE UP!!
Almost done…
Relative morality knocks the teeth out of every moral statement.
The Godless have developed a method for dealing with this harsh reality.
They put it on me to “prove” objective morality exists.
Did you catch that?
It’s MY JOB to prove that THEY are speaking the moral truth.
So…I wrote this post.
Jesus taught objective morality.
He said: “Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself.”
No exceptions.
Sleep tight!
31 Responses
Morality is not usually controversial? I hope you’re being facetious. As to “morality is not fluid” — history informs us otherwise.
Stealing is “wrong” EXCEPT when you need to survive.
FYI, that seems to be Catholicism’s position on the matter:
“The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.” (Catechism 2408)
This is called “Moral Relativism”. It is the opposite of “Objective Morality”.
That’s incorrect. Moral relativism is the opposite of moral absolutism. The opposite of objective is subjective.
Objective Morality says: Stealing is wrong.
So you claim. But what makes it an objective (i.e. true regardless of personal opinions) standard.
Morals with exceptions are useless.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Most rules of conduct acknowledge (and provide for) the existence of exceptions to the rule. Few would cry foul if you stole away the weapon of a madman firing shots into a crowd, or the keys of a person preparing to drive home inotxicated.
Moreover, how would you resolve a situation where two absolutes come into conflict?
Look up relativism and you will see my definition is not incorrect.
When two absolutes conflict, you have a moral dilemma. This is exactly what I was trying to talk about with Mike. He chose not to defend his position because, unlike yourself, he does not have the courage to admit that people are superior to animals.
Morality is not a list of specific dos and don’ts. Morality is the knowledge that such a list exists. We aren’t “stealing” when we disarm a madman and firing shots into a crowd. Pointing out that “few would cry foul” means you already understand this. What would you say if we prosecuted the person who disarms a gunman?
The deeper question is “does objective truth exist”? When you say “no” you immediately invalidate your answer.
To reiterate, ‘objective’ means the standard exists apart from human minds. I’m open to the possibility that such a standard might exist, but see no evidence of this.
If stealing means taking the property of others without their express permission, then snatching the gunman’s weapon (assuming that he/she is the legal owner) constitutes theft . However, society permits the theft in this situation because your right to keep your property is deemed subservient in relation to the competing right of others to go about their business unharmed by your actions. It’s a weighing of human values.
Objective means the standard exists apart from my personal opinion. For evidence, you need look no further than your assertion that it’s important to “weigh human values”.
Yes. But my assertion is based on the observation that humans express values, whereas the assertion that those values exist apart from human opinion does not. As far as I can tell, humans are the only ones who discuss morality. The rest of the universe remains indifferent to our existence or how we act towards one another.
Correct.
Humans are the only species with some sense of moral values. This doesn’t speak to the topic of whether or not those values are subjective or objective.
Again, your suggestion that we “weight human values” is objectively true throughout our species. All people hold some sense of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ though we may differ on the specifics.
How ould you account for the Korowai tribesman who not only deems canabilism acceptable but a moral duty? Doesn’t the stark difference of opinion on such matters negate the notion of objetivity?
Do you really believe cannibalism is ok as long as the local culture practices it? Would you say that eating people is merely a ‘difference of opinion’?
No, to both questions. But what will you tell them? (“Sorry, guys, but your ritualistic cannibalism based on religious superstition is completely whack. Try our symbolic cannibalism — The Eucharist — instead. It’s much more objective.”)
Alright. We are agreed about cannibalism.
And we’re agreed about what we tell those cannibals too. I probably wouldn’t start with the symbolism of the Eucharist but I’m not going to tell you how to preach the gospel. 🙂
Cannibalism is completely whack. That is the objective truth. First step would be to demand the cannibals stop eating each other. Pass a law that outlaws the practice. As the culture matures, some of the smarter cannibals will start asking questions like, “Why can’t we eat people?” That’s when you atheists will run into difficulty. If you don’t have a transcendent, moral standard (like “God”) to point them toward. Without objective morality, all you can say is, “I don’t personally like cannibalism.” The tribe will probably eat you at that point. And why shouldn’t they?
Interesting. Since they only eat the male members of their tribe who succomb to disease, my first step would be to to reduce the body count by providing the medicines that prevent/cure the common diseases they attribute to evil spirits. Then I’d inform Emma Watson she needs to go distribute “HeForShe” buttons and deliver a heart-rending plea to close the gender dining gap.
Perfection.
No wonder they kicked you out of the atheist club.
No Country for Moderate Men
So… Why do you believe that universal and objective morality exists? All I see here is assertion that it does and mockery of anyone who might disagree. Not very helpful to those trying to understand why you believe what you believe.
I believe that animals are inferior to human beings. Therefore, I reject your plea to “love all animals the same”.
I’m saying that it is objectively true that people are more valuable than other animals. Always. Every single time.
Does that make things clear enough?
I’m trying not to be “open ended”.
You “believe” people are more valuable than animals. I agree. But again, where is the objective standard supporting your belief? I contend it’s purely subjective.
Surprisingly and refreshingly direct. Thanks John.
You’re welcome.
… Is that it?
What you have given again is an assertion and personal Subjective opinion based on what you ‘believe’ is a universal value. You have not demonstrated that what you believe is actually true in any Universal or Objective way. Rather than supporting your contention, you seem to be demonstrating the opposite.
Care to try again?
Sure.
Here’s another objectively true statement:
“All lives are precious.”
How’s that?
Here’s another objectively true statement:
“Owning and controlling other people as property, or like animals is Evil. Period!!”
I have now demonstrated the existence of objective morality using your own quotes.
Rather than supporting your contention, you seem to be demonstrating that you don’t actually have a contention.
Care to try again?
Do you find that the concept of moral relativism gets conflated with the concept of the non-existence of morality? I think it’s easier to defend a position to say that morality is simply a useful construct and does not objectively exist.
However, that is different than saying “This is wrong is sometimes,” which seems to be the relativist position.
Of course, that’s also different than saying “This is wrong when (x)” because now that’s an objective statement.
Sucks to be a relativist… sometimes?
“Sucks to be a relativist…sometimes?”
Congrats! This is quote of the week!
Yeah, this is why most apologists phrase it:
“Is it always wrong to torture children for fun?” The “for fun” part discounts the fact that there could be an alternative motive. And the obvious answer is “yes”.
But then they have to explain on what basis is it wrong if morality is relative.
My prediction though: John Zande will ignore what I just said and come with his screen shot, thinking you made his point.
I’ve yet to get an Atheist to actually answer THAT question. They immediately start dancing, and trying to come up with a way that the person doing the “torturing” might not actually KNOW that it’s torture, or might not being doing it JUST for fun.
…they change the question, if they read it at all.
And that’s why I’ve grown bored and decided to count sheep instead. 😉
I would say your prediction is correct except — The Windbag doesn’t show up here anymore because we’re not impressed with his screen shots. He’s not used to being challenged.
But don’t think for a minute they have FORGOTTEN us. We continue to haunt them. We find our names popping up in their blog comments on a regular basis.
This doesn’t have much to do with morality, but I found the atheists’ anthem a while back.
https://youtu.be/qtsIz2RvAyU
It’s wickedly fitting 😉
The truth always puts me to sleep
Does a ‘moral’ rule have to apply in all situations and contexts to be considered ‘objective’?
Or, if in a defined contextual situation the ‘moral’ rule is always true, is it therefore an objective moral rule (an objective morality)?
It would seem to me the latter is the case and different situations or contexts should not be considered ‘exceptions’ considering an objective morality.
$.02
and going back to sleep now…