The Moral Argument

[UndecidedFrog]

It is entirely possible that what we call moral values are also objective mechanisms that allow the stability and survival of a set of complex interacting beings, who are too weak to live alone. If the covalent bond disappears, then the stable configuration we call diamond will also disappear. In the same way, the disappearance of moral bonds will make our species go extinct pretty soon. I can talk of objectivity of the covalent bond only in the context of interacting atoms. Talking of an objective covalent bond without atoms or electrons is meaningless. In the same way, I do not see any meaning in objective moral values without the entities they apply to.

but if this is the case we can replace the sentence

- Objective moral values cannot exist without God

With

- Objective mechanisms for the stability of interacting beings cannot exist without God

Which is arguably not as strong.

I would go with the following one

- Objective moral values cannot exist without interacting sentient beings

Very good viole. I would just like to add, that different interacting sentient beings may form these moral bonds differently than other interacting sentient beings, as objectively demonstrated by the different morals that exist among different societies.

In certain societites, cannibalism is perfectly acceptable, especially if you are eating your enemy. Whereas in other societies, this is not acceptable.

There is no requirement for any deity to form these moral bonds.

Regards,

UF

[Nakosis]

I think we are falling in the trap I feared. The fact that moral values are not objective, does not imply that we can do whatever we want. We have to be clear about what we mean with objective. I think they are objective but only in the context of interacting human beings, or, more generally, sentient beings that need to cooperate in order to survive. In this sense, I see them as objective mechanisms that favor the stability of a set of conscious entities.

Let us consider diamonds, for instance. A set of carbon atoms reaches a high level of stability when influenced by external forces, mainly temperature and pressure. The objective mechanism that allows this stability is the covalent bond between atoms, where electrons are shared in a strong way.

It is entirely possible that what we call moral values are also objective mechanisms that allow the stability and survival of a set of complex interacting beings, who are too weak to live alone. If the covalent bond disappears, then the stable configuration we call diamond will also disappear. In the same way, the disappearance of moral bonds will make our species go extinct pretty soon. I can talk of objectivity of the covalent bond only in the context of interacting atoms. Talking of an objective covalent bond without atoms or electrons is meaningless. In the same way, I do not see any meaning in objective moral values without the entities they apply to.

but if this is the case we can replace the sentence

- Objective moral values cannot exist without God

With

- Objective mechanisms for the stability of interacting beings cannot exist without God

Which is arguably not as strong.

I would go with the following one

- Objective moral values cannot exist without interacting sentient beings

I don't see a issue as long as qualified by a proper understanding of objective. A moral standard without bias or prejudice, based on fact.

I think that is what the "moral" Atheists are looking for.

Still someone or group has to develop this code. Isn't this what a society does with it's laws? And, you have to get buy-in/acceptance from the rest. Like the US Constitution? This is the code we've put down to legally judge the people. It's tries to be objective. Still there is no guarantee such "laws" are free from bias or prejudice.

For Judeans the OT was their legal moral code. The constitution of their society. There is no constitution for the current state of Israel because many Jews feel they need no laws other then their Bible. In the US the Bible has no legal authority except the symbolic promise to tell the truth.

The legal separation of church and state is written into our "objective" moral code.

What do you think? Isn't the laws a country pass/enforce really an objective moral code? They dictate a legally enforceable right and wrong.

Still this does not change our individual morals. What we inherently consider right and wrong.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Nakosis

[Nakosis]

Very good viole. I would just like to add, that different interacting sentient beings may form these moral bonds differently than other interacting sentient beings, as objectively demonstrated by the different morals that exist among different societies.

In certain societites, cannibalism is perfectly acceptable, especially if you are eating your enemy. Whereas in other societies, this is not acceptable.

There is no requirement for any deity to form these moral bonds.

Regards,

UF

Without divine authority a moral law has to support by a rational, validated argument. Still this is far from universal.

It's morality by agreed enforcement.

Much easier to claim such moral laws have the authority of God, as long as people fear/respect that authority. Easier to get acceptance.

[Shiloh62]

Hello All:

Just wanted to see what everyone thinks of the moral argument...

Premise 1: Objective moral values and duties cannot exist without God

Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties exist

Logical Conclusion: God exists

Do any atheists out there disagree with the premises? On what grounds?

I can't answer for the atheists, but those are true statements.

[apologia828]

It is entirely possible that what we call moral values are also objective mechanisms that allow the stability and survival of a set of complex interacting beings, who are too weak to live alone. If the covalent bond disappears, then the stable configuration we call diamond will also disappear. In the same way, the disappearance of moral bonds will make our species go extinct pretty soon. I can talk of objectivity of the covalent bond only in the context of interacting atoms. Talking of an objective covalent bond without atoms or electrons is meaningless. In the same way, I do not see any meaning in objective moral values without the entities they apply to.

but if this is the case we can replace the sentence

- Objective moral values cannot exist without God

With

- Objective mechanisms for the stability of interacting beings cannot exist without God

Which is arguably not as strong.

I would go with the following one

- Objective moral values cannot exist without interacting sentient beings

Very good viole. I would just like to add, that different interacting sentient beings may form these moral bonds differently than other interacting sentient beings, as objectively demonstrated by the different morals that exist among different societies.

In certain societites, cannibalism is perfectly acceptable, especially if you are eating your enemy. Whereas in other societies, this is not acceptable.

There is no requirement for any deity to form these moral bonds.

Regards,

UF

You have just proved by your example that it is impossible from the atheist worldview to believe in objective morality. The fact that cannibalism would be accectable in one society but not in another proves that morals are subject to the views of a particular society. Obviously, atheists can form a set of moral codes but they will only be subjective.

[UndecidedFrog]

You have just proved by your example that it is impossible from the atheist worldview to believe in objective morality. The fact that cannibalism would be accectable in one society but not in another proves that morals are subject to the views of a particular society. Obviously, atheists can form a set of moral codes but they will only be subjective.

You are mistaken on several fronts.

1) I did not claim what I wrote to be any atheist worldview, but my own opinions. Therefore it is a mistake to generalize my views as "the atheist worldview". From my observations, there is no atheist worldview, since atheists tend to be very heterogeneous. The only thing that atheists must have in common is that they do not believe in god/s. Imagine the range and latitude of all other opinions, given such freedom.

2) The fact that different societies have different sets of morals at different times proves that there is no common morality among all societies.

3) Any society can adopt any set of morals and impose them on their members. Any person (christian, atheist, buddhist, hindu, muslim, etc.) can adopt any set of morals and impose that on themselves. These moral sets will all be necessarily subjective.

Regards,

UF

[ByFaithAlone]

Just as a matter of interest, doesn't this lead to moral nihilism. For instance, you say that you do not believe that objective morals exist. Doesn't this mean that you could not condemn...

(a) The Holocaust

(b) The Armenian Genocide

© Rape

(d) Torture

(e) <Choose from list of morally reprehensible actions>

....as morally wrong?

Therefore, hypothetically speaking why does it matter if you go out and kill someone or commit pedophilia? Do you honestly believe that no objective morals exist by which we condemn these actions?

Yes generally nihilism is the idea that morals are not inherently objective. That there is no objective meaning to life. That's ok with me as then we are free to give life meaning. Life is what you make of it and life means what you choose it to mean.

Fair enough. An interesting view of life...

As to the things you listed, I judge them morally wrong according to my values as you do according to yours. I don't need my values to be objective, which I don't even think is possible, to judge something good or bad. They are my values. They are part of who I am. That is enough for me. I don't need them to be your values, though we do happen to share some it seems.

However, without objective morality, you cannot actually say something is absolutely wrong. You can only say that you "believe" it is wrong. Therefore, from your viewpoint, you only believe the Holocaust is wrong and have no objective reason for believing such and therefore no right to judge. I would humbly submit that you cannot condemn Hitler. Am I correct?

I like what I like. I don't like what I don't like. Hopefully we can get along. I'd rather be open and honest with who I am then pretend something that is not really me in order to live up to someone else's expectation because that would just be a lie.

Fair enough. Thanks for being honest. If you liked murder, or if someone else liked pedophilia, would that make it morally right in your subjective world? Just food for thought...

[ByFaithAlone]

I respect your point of view, although, as viole stated earlier, there are some things deemed morally wrong across continents and cultures which seems to protect premise 2 from refutation.

Just as a matter of interest, doesn't this lead to moral nihilism. For instance, you say that you do not believe that objective morals exist. Doesn't this mean that you could not condemn...

(a) The Holocaust

(b) The Armenian Genocide

© Rape

(d) Torture

(e) <Choose from list of morally reprehensible actions>

....as morally wrong?

Therefore, hypothetically speaking why does it matter if you go out and kill someone or commit pedophilia? Do you honestly believe that no objective morals exist by which we condemn these actions?

I think we are falling in the trap I feared. The fact that moral values are not objective, does not imply that we can do whatever we want.

Hmm... I don't see why not... Even if morals are objective, we can do whatever we want and those actions could be objectively considered amoral, moral or immoral. The argument places no bounds on what you can do.

We have to be clear about what we mean with objective. I think they are objective but only in the context of interacting human beings, or, more generally, sentient beings that need to cooperate in order to survive. In this sense, I see them as objective mechanisms that favor the stability of a set of conscious entities.

Let us consider diamonds, for instance. A set of carbon atoms reaches a high level of stability when influenced by external forces, mainly temperature and pressure. The objective mechanism that allows this stability is the covalent bond between atoms, where electrons are shared in a strong way.

It is entirely possible that what we call moral values are also objective mechanisms that allow the stability and survival of a set of complex interacting beings, who are too weak to live alone. If the covalent bond disappears, then the stable configuration we call diamond will also disappear. In the same way, the disappearance of moral bonds will make our species go extinct pretty soon. I can talk of objectivity of the covalent bond only in the context of interacting atoms. Talking of an objective covalent bond without atoms or electrons is meaningless. In the same way, I do not see any meaning in objective moral values without the entities they apply to.

Excellent analogy as always. My problem is that you are confusing what is stable with what is moral. You are referring to utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest amount of people or the path that leads to the greatest good and stability for society. However, this leads to several dilemmas. For instance, continuing with the Holocaust theme, Hitler came to power in 1933. He rapidly began to consolidate power and moved against the Jews in Germany. He convinced Germany that the Jews and Allied Powers were at fault for all of Germany's problems. In that, he led Germany to become the premier military and economic power and Europe while at the same time forcing Jews out of work and eventually into slave labor and death camps. Now, taking that into account, and the fact that there were more non-Jews than Jews in Germany and the fact that Hitler's rise promoted good for the vast majority of Germans by providing jobs and prestige, according to utilitarianism, Hitler's actions were fine. However, we consider them to be immoral. As given by this example, stability is not equal to morality.

[ByFaithAlone]

I agree that utilitarianism is not the way to go. We cannot simply ponder on how to optimize the greatest good for the greatest amount of people and call it right.

Excellent. Glad we agree on this point.

If I thought like that, I would approve the dissecting of a healthy person to provide organs to several dying people, and this is clearly absurd and abhorrent.

If they volunteer to give a kidney I would have no problem but I know what you're getting at... forcible disection - never a good thing...

And I do not compare stability with morality, I am comparing the mechanisms which favor stability to morality.

What do we mean when we feel that something is wrong? Well, I maintain that this is a neurological effect. To see injustice or violence on helpless people can cause me physical pain and bring me to tears. This is what I sense as wrong: an effect on my psyche which could be reduced to how my brain is wired. In this sense, this is analogous to other forms of pain that are not related to what we call morality. I think, these effects are necessary to maintain stability for our species. If we did not feel physical pain, we would not be here discussing these issues. In the same way, if most of us did not feel empathy for the pain of others, we would also not be here, probably. It is entirely possible that this sort of feelings will be measurable by scanning the brain of a psychologically healthy person who experiences something he considers morally wrong. In this measurable sense, I think they are objective.

I think I see what your getting at. However, I have a few objections. You say that morals are merely synapses firing in our brain that give us the feelings of pain and "bring tears to our eyes" whenever we see atrocities. This means that you avoid committing actions merely because they cause society or you pain. However, if the action does not pain you or society, then, under your moral guidelines, it is not immoral. On the other hand, I am sure that you would contend that actions that cause joy, happiness, etc. are good. However, again, this is merely utilitarianism. It favors what is good for society or you (avoiding pain) over doing what is morally right or wrong. As we both agreed, utilitarianism is not morality. Therefore, your own words convict your method of "morality."

This does not exclude exceptions. There are people who feel no pain when they are hurt or feel no empathy whatsoever. But, again, these are due growth anomalies in their nervous system, and as long as their problem does not become mainstream, a certain level of social stability for our species as a whole is not in danger.

Excellent... I was going to bring up this follow up point. Additionally, there are sociopaths and those who practice pedophilia. Are their actions immoral? If they are wired into their brains how can we condemn their actions? Again, with the Holocaust analogy, Hitler felt no remorse that we know of. He truly believed he was doing the right thing. Therefore, based on your system, we cannot condemn him. His brain was merely not firing the "proper neurons."

Again, excellent points from you, as always. You always make me think...

[Nakosis]

However, without objective morality, you cannot actually say something is absolutely wrong. You can only say that you "believe" it is wrong. Therefore, from your viewpoint, you only believe the Holocaust is wrong and have no objective reason for believing such and therefore no right to judge. I would humbly submit that you cannot condemn Hitler. Am I correct?

Correct, well as far as I'm concerned. One cannot say something is absolutely wrong. I do not condemn anyone. I don't have perfect knowledge so I wouldn't trust the absoluteness of my opinions of right and wrong.

Hitler was a puppet. He was weak willed and people around him fed his ego to manipulate him to their own purpose. That doesn't make Hitler a good guy, but he was a victim life/circumstances. Most everyone thinks themselves justified in their actions. His hatred of the Jews was probably fuel by things like the Bible. I always wonder by what idealism people justify their actions. Not to blame Christianity here, but people who justify themselves with absolutes, well it's hard to get them to question validity/reasonableness of those absolutes.

I would not condemn Hitler but I/we'd still have to deal with him. We, the people of the US and other nations have some common morality. We can judge his actions as wrong and take steps to stop his actions. I don't need absolutes for that, just consensus. People don't like to accept it but I think the truth is might makes right.

Fair enough. Thanks for being honest. If you liked murder, or if someone else liked pedophilia, would that make it morally right in your subjective world? Just food for thought...

Do you favor the death penalty? Some see it as murder and so immoral. In ancient Greek pedophilia was society's norm. Seems kind of obvious that right and wrong are not absolute for everyone. We have laws to enforce a common morality. However laws don't change people. It may make them hide how they feel. Just as likely they will act covertly.

So if you judge according to some absolute idealism or some enforce common morality what difference does it make? Maybe people prefer to feel justified in their condemnation of others... I don't feel a need to condemn anyone. Maybe that's why I don't feel a need for absolutes.

I deal with the behavior of others. According to a, hopefully, rational understanding and according to my values. Absolutes mean nothing to me if they don't agree with my values. If God came to you and told you that you had to sacrifice your son/daughter to show your faithfulness would you? Or would you risk Hell to save them?