Objective morality and fixed ethics

[noons]

I thought of opening this thread after thinking about an earlier thread that quickly developed into a discussion about Christianity and objective ethics vs. other systems of morality. However, that thread also had a lot of back and forth shouting and changing of the subject. But there was one nugget that I think should be explored.

That nugget goes something like this: The Christian says that atheists can certainly be moral, but have no basis for knowing that their morality is true. The atheist counters by saying that the Christian moral system, objective or not, is based on superstitions and myths.

I'd like to rephrase the argument into less confrontational terms. The argument seems to be that theists who believe in objective morality, whatever ethics they may have, are limited by a fixed set of rules, while atheists, whether they believe in objective morality or not, do not have such limits.

So, if anyone would like to share their take on the idea, the thread is open.

[gregmita]

Feb 14, 2011 18:08:26 GMT noons said:

I'd like to rephrase the argument into less confrontational terms. The argument seems to be that theists who believe in objective morality, whatever ethics they may have, are limited by a fixed set of rules, while atheists, whether they believe in objective morality or not, do not have such limits.

Hi, I'm not sure I quite get this version of the "argument". How can you have an objective morality (atheist or theist) without a set of fixed rules? Of course, exactly what the rules are will vary, but is not the whole concept of objective morality about the existence of some rules? Again, the "rules" can be enforced/dictated by deity, or fixed in some way and discoverable in nature.

[sandwiches]

The atheist counters by saying that the Christian moral system, objective or not, is based on superstitions and myths.

I anm no philosopher but how can any moral system be objective? Would most Christians agree on on a common set of morals? Even if they could, would that make it "objective"? In what sense? Other religions would have a different moral system?

[unkleE]

As a christian, I think ethics are objective, but misunderstood by many. Jesus gave us the objective ethic - "Love God whole-heartedly and love your neighbour as yourself". The rest, as the chess players say, is technique, and can vary. So christianity isn't based on laws like the 10 Commandments (despite what many christians think) but on "walking in the Spirit" (Galations 5:16), i.e. allowing the Spirit to guide us into choices that exemplify the commands Jesus gave us.

Christians have a dilemma, that of Euthyphro - is it good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good? There are supposedly unacceptable consequences for each answer. The usual dodge is to say both and neither - ethics are based on God's character. But I have no problems saying God commands because they are good, because I see no problem with God conforming to ethics just as he conforms to mathematics and logic - he can't make A and ~A both true at the same time, and he doesn't suffer any loss of omnipotence thereby.

The atheist too faces dilemmas, it seems to me. The obvious one is that if the atheist is a materialist/naturalist/physicalist (as I would think most are), then ethics can only be evolutionary, whatever works and helps individuals or societies to survive via natural selection. But if ethics = what is successful, then genocide might well be successful in some circumstances .....

I note some atheist thinkers are now suggesting ethics might be objective, "out there" in some sense just as the laws of mathematics are "out there", but it is difficult to see how they can justify this, and certainly not how they can know this.

So I think there are three basic stands on ethics - atheism = not objective but personal; religion = rules; christianity = objective but Spirit-led rather than rule-driven.

[davedodo007]

I have always found 'objective morality' to be false. Religious 'morals are not moral at all and as this is a Christian site I will focus on Christianity. Christians don't have morals (I'm not saying that you are immoral by the way, just showing the concept to be useless.) There is not such thing as Christian morality as it is just obedience that is all. An obedience to a set of rules that's it. As I pointed out on another thread this leads to immoral behaviour. Take the ten commandments for example the punishment for not obeying them is death thus breaking the 'thou shall not kill' commandment which then becomes a contradiction. The death penalty is then enforced for all trivial infringements. Picking up sticks on the Sabbath, death. Not being a virgin on your wedding night (always women,) death. Being a witch, death. Being a homosexual, death. Being an unbeliever or believer in other gods, death. I could go on but you see where I'm going with this.

There is no celestial court where we can object to such punishments. There is no debate going on here. Basically obey the rules or if you are caught then you die. Seriously what's moral about that. This becomes problematic for Christians because they either cherry pick the parts of the Bible they prefer to follow and become hypocrites or follow them all and become fundamentalists.

Though 'subjective morality' might seem problematic to some on the theistic side 'who makes the rules.' the social mores just seem to get better when people are not oppressed and are allowed to make their own choices on the matter. Animals and even insects have been shown to behave morally even though they have no concept of the 'morality' they are showing. This is because it's an evolutionary trait that they are unaware of even though it has left their species successful.

[noons]

Well, Dave, I think your post sums up the argument that I was describing in my original post. That being the question is Objective morality and ethics as Christians understand it any different from obedience to a fixed set of rules? And if moral facts are there to be discovered, are Christians limited by that set of rules?

[eckadimmock]

Feb 15, 2011 1:15:55 GMT davedodo007 said:

I have always found 'objective morality' to be false. Religious 'morals are not moral at all and as this is a Christian site I will focus on Christianity. Christians don't have morals (I'm not saying that you are immoral by the way, just showing the concept to be useless.)

..... Animals and even insects have been shown to behave morally even though they have no concept of the 'morality' they are showing. This is because it's an evolutionary trait that they are unaware of even though it has left their species successful.

You seem to have gone full circle here, Dave. First you say the concept is useless and then you say it's woven through nature?

You say "the social mores just seem to get better when people are not oppressed and are allowed to make their own choices on the matter," are you an anarchist?

[noons]

Feb 15, 2011 1:23:36 GMT eckadimmock said:

Feb 15, 2011 1:15:55 GMT davedodo007 said:

I have always found 'objective morality' to be false. Religious 'morals are not moral at all and as this is a Christian site I will focus on Christianity. Christians don't have morals (I'm not saying that you are immoral by the way, just showing the concept to be useless.)

..... Animals and even insects have been shown to behave morally even though they have no concept of the 'morality' they are showing. This is because it's an evolutionary trait that they are unaware of even though it has left their species successful.

You seem to have gone full circle here, Dave. First you say the concept is useless and then you say it's woven through nature?

You say "the social mores just seem to get better when people are not oppressed and are allowed to make their own choices on the matter," are you an anarchist?

I contend that we are both anarchists. I just support one less form of government than you. When you understand why you dismiss all other forms of government, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Sorry, couldn't resist. But lets not get off topic.

[unkleE]

Feb 15, 2011 1:15:55 GMT davedodo007 said:

Christians don't have morals (I'm not saying that you are immoral by the way, just showing the concept to be useless.) There is not such thing as Christian morality as it is just obedience that is all. An obedience to a set of rules that's it.

Some christians, Dave, but not all. Certainly not me (see my previous post), and not the NT if I read it correctly.

I can understand why you would have the impression you do, but that is not (IMO) true christianity.

[noons]

Feb 15, 2011 1:42:51 GMT unkleE said:

Feb 15, 2011 1:15:55 GMT davedodo007 said:

Christians don't have morals (I'm not saying that you are immoral by the way, just showing the concept to be useless.) There is not such thing as Christian morality as it is just obedience that is all. An obedience to a set of rules that's it.

Some christians, Dave, but not all. Certainly not me (see my previous post), and not the NT if I read it correctly.

I can understand why you would have the impression you do, but that is not (IMO) true christianity.

I understand what you're saying, and agree for the most part, but I need to repeat my caution against the use of terms like "true christianity."

[syzygy]

I agree with UncleE on Christian morality, though I would phrase it in a way that I think makes sense to both atheists and theists. I distinguish principle from rule, and consider that rules are the result of using common sense and such other virtues as prudence and temperance in applying the principles to life situations. UncleE mentions love of God and neighbor. That would be a principle. Another is "The end does not justify the means." And there's the Kantian "Treat persons as ends not as means to an end." To apply a principle you have to interpret. It's very situation dependent. The cumulative wisdom of the ages has result in a number of rules like "Keep your bombs away from non-combatants"; but they are secondary, and though important, not absolute.

I think Christians and atheists can agree that ethics is something like this. I don't know if the atheist is able to justify the basic level of principle. I'm guessing that it's possible. I'm also guessing that it's not really any easier for the Christian. I don't think Christian morality is a matter of God making rules and enforcing them by rewards and punishments.

Speaking to Dave, I think using a tendentious interpretation of a scripture that you don't believe in is extremely unhelpful. I have the impression Noons restarted this debate hoping to avoid that.

[davedodo007]

Feb 15, 2011 1:23:36 GMT eckadimmock said:

Feb 15, 2011 1:15:55 GMT davedodo007 said:

I have always found 'objective morality' to be false. Religious 'morals are not moral at all and as this is a Christian site I will focus on Christianity. Christians don't have morals (I'm not saying that you are immoral by the way, just showing the concept to be useless.)

..... Animals and even insects have been shown to behave morally even though they have no concept of the 'morality' they are showing. This is because it's an evolutionary trait that they are unaware of even though it has left their species successful.

You seem to have gone full circle here, Dave. First you say the concept is useless and then you say it's woven through nature?

Taken in an atheistic perspective then this is correct. The rules were thought up by men and written down by men (the social mores at the time.) It's when these rules are credited to god that the concept becomes useless. They then become written in stone so to speak. They have to be obeyed full stop. They can't be questioned, debated or even asked to be justified.

You say "the social mores just seem to get better when people are not oppressed and are allowed to make their own choices on the matter," are you an anarchist?

No. I was thinking more about democracies and human rights, free education and health care, benefits for the sick and unemployed etc.


Yes noons, I liked your opening post and decided to join the discussion.

[captainzman]

Feb 14, 2011 22:28:35 GMT sandwiches said:

The atheist counters by saying that the Christian moral system, objective or not, is based on superstitions and myths.

I anm no philosopher but how can any moral system be objective? Would most Christians agree on on a common set of morals? Even if they could, would that make it "objective"? In what sense? Other religions would have a different moral system?

Well, there is a number of different ways you can formulate this, but I would say that "objective ethics" means something along the lines of "moral facts are mind-independent". Things being right or wrong do not depend on our attitudes toward them.

[captainzman]

Feb 14, 2011 23:34:31 GMT unkleE said:

As a christian, I think ethics are objective, but misunderstood by many. Jesus gave us the objective ethic - "Love God whole-heartedly and love your neighbour as yourself". The rest, as the chess players say, is technique, and can vary. So christianity isn't based on laws like the 10 Commandments (despite what many christians think) but on "walking in the Spirit" (Galations 5:16), i.e. allowing the Spirit to guide us into choices that exemplify the commands Jesus gave us.

Right. Virtue ethics (think of philosophers like Plato, Aristotle) is a minority position in philosophy these days, but it has a very strong tradition in Christianity. Up until Kant, pretty much everyone was a virtue ethicist of some sort. Virtue ethics focuses on obtaining the right kind of character, and a person's actions will be reflected in that kind of character.

Here's an example. Say that you have a five year-old son who's done something wrong. Let's say that he called his sister a bad word. Do you...
Send him to his room?
Give him a stern lecture?
Take away certain privileges, like watching cartoons?
(Feel free to add more ways of handling the situation.)

A virtue ethicist would say that there is no one right answer. If the parent has the right type of character, he make the correct choice. It is not a simple application or rules.

The atheist too faces dilemmas, it seems to me. The obvious one is that if the atheist is a materialist/naturalist/physicalist (as I would think most are), then ethics can only be evolutionary, whatever works and helps individuals or societies to survive via natural selection. But if ethics = what is successful, then genocide might well be successful in some circumstances .....

From where I stand, the whole "ends justify the means" is a fatal flaw of consequentialism.

I note some atheist thinkers are now suggesting ethics might be objective, "out there" in some sense just as the laws of mathematics are "out there", but it is difficult to see how they can justify this, and certainly not how they can know this.

They usually try to point out similar cases in other fields, like logic or physics. The fundamental facts of logic or physics are not determined by our attitudes- they just are. Those facts are just inexplicable, because the explanation has to stop somewhere. I do think that theists have a better position, because we can use God to "explain" moral facts.

[unkleE]

Feb 15, 2011 1:50:04 GMT noons said:

I understand what you're saying, and agree for the most part, but I need to repeat my caution against the use of terms like "true christianity."

Yes, I understand, that's why I added IMO (= in my opinion). What I'm wanting to say is that I think it is what the NT teaches, but not necessarily what most christians believe today. Perhaps I should have said that rather than use the term you prefer we avoid!