A lot of times when I am out and about on the internet surfing through various arguments “for God” I encounter this argument: “Without God we cannot have objective morals.” This is the tommy gun pulled from many theists’ violin cases, but it is shooting nothing but blanks– there’s a lotta noise, but nothing comes out of the barrel. I agree whole-heartedly that without God there are no objective morals, but I don’t care. The lack of a Supernatural Consciousness to dictate “proper” behavior is by no means a bad thing. The argument that without God people will act badly is patently false. There is no link between immoral behavior and secularism. In fact, many of the values that we hold true and consider “moral” arose, not from religion, but from Human deliberation and contemplation. Meanwhile, many “God-based” morals are patently immoral by the standards of the very same “God.”
Killing Is Not Objectively Wrong
If we just take a look at the 10 Commandments we will see a very clear pattern of hypocricy and immorality (using the 10 Commandments as a guide to morality) in the Bible. For instance, we are told “thou shall not kill,” but we are told that the punishment for killing is… being killed. Every Commandment is reinforced by punishment of death. That alone makes this particular God (the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God) extremely hypocritical and immoral– again, by “His” standards. However, as I have mentioned before, there is another way to come about our values and morals– through logical contemplation, analysis, debate and deliberation.
Morality is not objective, it is specific. For instance, not many people are willing to argue that killing is objectively immoral. Certainly there are some who do. Religious cults that have tremendous integrity, such as the Amish, will preach forgiveness even when their children are senselessly slaughtered. I admire the Amish for their integrity, but I despise their value system. My belief is that forgiveness is not always “good.” In fact, I have to wonder what an Amish teacher would do if a man walked into an Amish school with a bomb strapped to his chest. If the Amish teacher had a gun, would he kill the man to save the children or would he plead with the man and have a massacre instead? In a situation like this, for instance, killing is the moral action. This is another area where I agree with Sam Harris; Pacifism is inherently immoral. Some dangers require us to kill.
Torture Is Not Objectively Wrong
Is there really any action that is worse than murder? Perhaps torture is. Is torture always immoral? I think the ticking bomb scenario (a far-fetched, but abstract moral quandary) creates a situation in which it may well be morally justifiable to torture. I also think torturing bin Laden can be justified. However, these situations are so extreme that they are exceptions, rather than rules. In 99.999999% of the possible scenarios one can imagine, torture is wrong. That is why torture should be illegal. In the .000001% cases where torture would be moral, the inquisitor should break the law. If that person is truly justified in his actions, the President (in the case of the United States) can pardon him. Remember, it is easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.
“God’s Morals” Are Often Immoral
Yes, of course this is “just my opinion.” Of course it is “just my opinion” that God’s morals, even if you excuse His hypocricy, are in fact immoral. But, again, so what? Many theists, in fact, will pay lip service to God, but share my moral values. For instance, here is a very short list of things God (still talking about the God of Abraham) says are immoral that I absolutely disagree with him on:
- Homosexuality
- Women having sex before marriage
- Using God’s name in vein
- Forgetting the Sabbath
- Worshiping other gods
That is an indisputable list, in that it is directly quotable to God in His Holy Books. Then there is the list of “immoral” behaviors that religious leaders attribute to God, but don’t necessarily have the backing of the Almighty’s Word to prove their stance. Instead, we depend upon “experts,” moral experts who have read and re-read the many Holy works and have therefore earned the “credibility” to tell us how to live. Such experts have recently told us that it is immoral to use a contraception. In Africa, there is even a moral expert who says that condoms have been infected with AIDS to kill Africans. How do you get to be so lucky to qualify as an “expert” in morality? By reading a lot and falling in line with doctrine (in the case of religious promotion) or by reading a lot and having other previous experts agree that you are indeed an expert (in the case of theology). However, we all know that some experts may not be formally recognized by the church or the college, but have put in the time with the Holy Book. One such expert was David Koresh. However, because he was not formally recognized by mainstream religions, he was considered a “wacko” in Waco, regardless of his expertise. Had he held the same exact views, but was a Catholic Bishop, he would be considered very moral.
Morals That Came From Secular Society
Now, there are certainly many figures in the realm of religion who I would consider very moral. Many of those figures, in fact, derived their morality from their religious beliefs. Martin Luther King Jr. is a prominent example of such a figure, but he is far from the only one. Just run down to your local church and you will find many examples (along with the choir drunk and the theist who goes to church every Sunday morning and beats his wife every Sunday evening). The same is true in secular circles. Go down to a local Amnesty International rally and you will discover people who derive their morals from a secular source (you will also find a fair share of secular hypocrites; religion has no monopolies). Now take a look at a very short list of secular values and movements:
- Environmentalism
- Emancipation
- Universal Suffrage
- Democracy
- Taxation WITH Representation
- Civil Rights
No doubt a savvy theist will try to take the wind out of my sails by talking about the many religious people (like Martin Luther King Jr.) who have played a significant role in realizing the dream of Civil Rights, for example, but none of these are the product of God or His Holy books, regardless of such attributions. The Bible speaks of slaves, but never speaks against slavery, for instance. The Bible treats women as property, not as citizens with equal rights. The Bible does not speak of the “morality” of democracy (which may not be moral at all, BTW). These are secular constructs that require no God and require no “objective morality.” Objective morality simply does not exist. Yet, we have managed to create our own value systems that are constantly in flux and will forever be refined. You don’t need objectivity to accomplish that, you need intelligent debate.
An Excerpt From No Faith? No Problem
What is right? What is wrong? How does one determine this? Must one’s morals be derived from scripture? And which Holy Book do we use? How do you decide between one Holy Book and another? If God truly exists, why has he failed to come up with one set of rules that everyone can agree upon? No doubt the vast majority of theists believe what they were told to believe by the ones who raised them. Most people are incapable of shaking the religious virus that their parents infected them with. Some do. Some become atheists. Some switch religions. Some leave one sect for another. Some leave religion, but maintain theistic Faith in general. What values one holds is thus determined in one of three ways: 1) They were indoctrinated, 2) they used their rationality to decide or 3) they used their emotions to decide. [Keep in mind here that I am referring to adults and not children.]
One whose values were determined through indoctrination is no better than a beast of burden or a cog in a machine. This unthinking creature does not need religious Faith to be “good” and “moral” it just needs a master to tell it what to think. These creatures are the same ones who are incapable of escaping the social scripts that have been laid out for it to play. They are pawns. Puppets. Puppies. They think that girls should wear pink and boys should wear blue. They think that girls should like to shop and boys to play in the mud. They are shallow, malleable and worthless beyond their basic “Humanity.” They deserve the same rights and protection that all humans deserve, but they deserve these only because of their Humanity. They are the constant reminder that we are not so far removed from the chimpanzee. Certainly I am being harsh in my analysis, but I stand by every word. These are the people who believe that we are “special” because of our Humanity, but refuse to use rationality though it is rationality that makes us “special” and that truly separates… [READ MORE]
21 users commented in " Morality Is Not Objective. So What? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackAlthough I must point out that there are issues with translation, and that often the original Hebraic text had been translated in ways which cast a new meaning upon the words. (Just like the whole Hebraic prophesy that the Messiah would be born of a “virgin” which when translated to Greek meant what it means in English (hence necessitating on the part of the Jesus-Event-Marketing Group the rather ingenious, creative but brain-numbingly counter-intuitive pantomime of the Immaculate Conception.) However, would it make an difference to your argument about “thou shalt not kill” with the assertion by many Judaic scholars that the original was “Thou shalt not murder”. Just taking that one small slice to build upon, as a code of conduct, this certainly wasnt the first in the ancient world. The multi-generational authors of the Torah spent a fair amount of time in Babylon, where they were of course immersed in a culture that lived by the Hammurabi’s Code….which was brutal..because it had to be.
“If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser. ”
Now theres a moral code !!
“However, would it make an difference to your argument about ‘thou shalt not kill’ with the assertion by many Judaic scholars that the original was ‘Thou shalt not murder’.”
That is a commandment that makes much more sense than does the “thou shall not kill” commandment. However, what is “murder”? The idea what is and what isn’t murder is as arbitrary as the idea of what is “good.” We bomb a missile site in Iraq and we call the civilians who live next door “collateral damage,” but others call it murder. We put people to death who have put others to death, we don’t call it murder, we call it “Capital Punishment.” God calls for women to be stoned to death if they have sex before marriage. He calls for people to be stoned to death if they don’t show up to service on the Sabbath. He and His followers may call it “justice,” but by any contemporary understanding of such events, it is murder. What if I tell my neighbor that he cannot play loud music on Mondays, because Mondays are special to me? If he blasts the radio, do I have a feasible defense if I kill him and then call it capital punishment? What if I throw a rock at his radio and inadvertently hit him, killing him, is he just “collateral damage”?
If it is committed in the name of God or State, they don’t call it murder. It’s all just word games and spin. Sacred Spin.
Precisely. Hence the inherent dilemma of any attempts to codify “moral” behavior. Especially when it is based (however loosely) on a hopelessley outdated system of thought that was only relevant for that time, and that time only. When thinking about what forces are at work that push the notion of consensus on how to treat one another, the stumbling block is always semantics. We justify causing the loss of life of another via various means and for various reasons in dozens of ways, and I’m sure there as many variants of “no-longer-breathing person” in every language, as there are for how he or she met that end.
Speaking solely from an anthropological perspective…it was undoubtedly helpful to peoples living in the Fertile Crescent in the 1700 BCE- 200CE years to have some notion that barbarism and anarchy werent necessarily the rule of the day…Im sure it allowed the reed farmers to slosh back into the Delta and proclaim what a great god Marduk was, and hells bells, the cunieform tablets flew off the shelves.
Clearly, basing a modern society on such archaic notions is criminal in its foolishness…yet the Judeo-Christian hodge-podge remains the foundation of the West.
Is a new codification possible ? Will it be followed ?
There needs to be a society that has logically based values. It must recognize the inherent value of each human life, but it must also recognize that it must place ITS citizens lives above other societies’ citizens’ lives, because to not do so could well spell the end for the citizens of the society that values all Human Life. That’s the catch! The UN seems to have failed at that very basic understanding. At some points it is most definitely appropriate to eliminate other Human Life (i.e. to preserve “our” Human Life). All value systems and moral system have this basic problem. If we are to recognize “Human Rights,” we have an obligation to spread that value system, but that is of course precisely the reasoning that religions use. However, that system which has a logic basis will prevail if the argument is indeed an argument and not a war. If, say, the West is to use mass media in an uncensored form, much like we have in the US (regardless of any complaints about the corporate and mainstream medias) to spread its ideology, then people will in turn come to share these values, as they would be logically based and logic has no bias. We may get the logic wrong, but that does not make the logic itself wrong. Now this is not to say that we will arrive at an objective, but that we will arrive at a moral system that takes into account the extreme nuance that experiences brings to bear on action. But any value system must be prepared to defend its self via physical force. Otherwise, history shows, it will be destroyed by those values system which are more than willing to use that same force. For a system like that of “secularism humanism” the emphasis must always be on peaceful actions above warring actions, but it is lunacy to remove warring actions from the Secular Humanist arsenal. And of course this whole time we recognize that “God” is not even part of the question, except when trying to figure out how to deal with Theists without being killed (and without killing). Hence the need to engage moderate theists in their reforms of oppressive religious cultures.
[...] I have had a read of his top 5 and particularly liked Jeffrey Stingerstein’s Morality Is Not Objective. So What? and PhillyChief’s Zarathustra Test. If you haven’t already, why not head on over to [...]
I want to point out that universality and context independence is different from objectivism. An action might always be wrong or right without regard to its context and still not be objective. Contrawise, it might be (but it’s not) that some action is objectively wrong only in some circumstances.
Subjectivism is a specific relation; X is subjective if and only if a statement about X must express a relation to some state of conscious mind(s) to be literally true. Objectivism is the lack of this specific relation.
For example, velocity is relative. TO be true, a statement of velocity must express a relation to some frame of reference. However, velocity is objective, because we can make true statements of velocity without reference to anyone’s mind.
There needs to be a society that has logically based values.
There is no such thing as “logically based values”. There are only the values that we conscious human beings happen to have. It would be more precise to say that we need a society that uses logic and science to rationally maximize the values we do have.
“An action might always be wrong or right without regard to its context and still not be objective.”
That might be true. Surely something could fulfill this distinction, as you point out, by virtue of its “Universality.” But do you know of any such cases which truly are Universal? What is an example of an action that is simply always wrong or right regardless of context and Universally accepted as “right” or “wrong”? At this point I think we would slip into an Anthropological discussion based on the way things have been or are, rather than the way things “could” or “should” be.
“There are only the values that we conscious human beings happen to have. It would be more precise to say that we need a society that uses logic and science to rationally maximize the values we do have.”
I should be more articulate. When I say “logically based” values, I mean values arrived at through the use of logic and rationality, versus the posited values of a “higher consciousness.”
The closest I can come is the case often used in philosophy, of torturing babies for fun. It’s very close to universal, both in the sense that almost everyone abhors such an act, and almost everyone who abhors such an action would admit no exceptions.
I applied the principles of charity and read that meaning. I still disagree. Values are base on our personal, conscious nature; they are not fundamentally reasoned out (although we can reason out intermediate or instrumental values).
If you’re interested in reading more, I have a series on meta ethical subjective relativism.
“torturing babies for fun”
It is curious to me that you would include “for fun” as that is contextual. It makes it seem as if there is a time that torturing babies may be acceptable.
I find it curious that you believe in values that are based on our “personal, conscious nature” but not through reason. Have your morals not changed at all since birth? Mine have. Some things that I used to think were immoral and wrong I now think are fine because I reasoned through the issue, not because it is simply part of my “nature.” Nature seems to have less to do with people’s values than does nurture… and that is where logic and rationality step in. Surely some people are born with a pre-disposition to certain behaviors that others will deem immoral and one with that disposition may well hold it up as a value. But none of that changes the point of this post and surely even such a person as that may truly hold a value system that says that the behavior in question is immoral, but has an urge he must control. That value system may be learned but accepted. I think the field of psychology has plenty to say about that.
I read your article. Your distinction between truth and taste is quite accurate, but seems to bear little relation to the point of my article. I agree that “Jesus is God” is a truth statement that cannot be relative. I agree that “grubs taste yummy” is a taste statement that is neither true nor false. But the question “is murder wrong” does not fall along either of those lines. The only ways in which it could fit those lines are these: 1) “X killed Z” is either true or false, 2) “killing someone feels good” is a “taste” statement. “Killing is wrong” does not fit either of those categories. Truth (of the capital T variety) is objective and independent, as you pointed out with the “Jesus is God” example. Taste is subjective, though millions may share it (i.e. Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon is the best album ever). Morality is neither “truth” nor “taste” and must involve another person, however directly or indirectly, if it is to be at all meaningful. Morality is about the actions/inactions of one (or a group) to another (or a group of others). If the “other” is missing in the equation, morality is rendered a meaningless trifle. The morality of an individual to himself is a slippery slope that has the logical conclusion that even some thoughts may be moral or immoral. That distinction would require a supernatural consciousness and will. If one believes in God, one can easily believe that some thoughts are “wrong,” though they certainly are not, as they are just thoughts and nothing more.
*shrugs* That’s the trope in philosophy. I offered the example only to support the abstract point that some statement can be universal without being objective, nothing more.
Irrelevant. One’s personal nature can change.
Reason is not entirely irrelevant to ethics. However, I submit that anything you reasoned through, you employed some preexisting moral intuition — an attribute of your mind — as a foundation, in much the same sense that scientific investigation employs experiment as a foundation.
The point of the post is fine. I’m discussing a side issue.
That morality involves other people has nothing to do with whether the foundation of morality and ethics have a foundation in something resembling taste.
Remember, I’m talking about the foundation of ethics and morality, not the applicability of reason and logic to that foundation to construct sophisticated derivative statements.
In much the same sense, one does not apply reason and logic to determine the outcome of experiments in science. One simply observes the experiment, and conforms the scientific theory to the experiment. Reason and logic are certainly important: you cannot conform any sophisticated theory to the experimental evidence without reason and logic. But reason and logic are not foundational: experiment and observation are foundational.
Can someone’s “nature” change? I suppose it can through experience (i.e. nurture) and the physiological functions of the body (much as we change during puberty). But saying that a change in values that someone arrived at through reason and rationality is determined by pre-existing moral “intuition” without ever looking at the specifics to investigating the changes and the situation is very much not like a scientific experiment. It is not applying reason, it is arguing a pre-determined case. It begins to remind me of determinism (you probably guessed where I was going) and it quickly becomes an irrelevant discussion. Further more, positing that someone’s “nature” is one way or another (and has “changed” to allow different values) is absolutely no different than positing that someone’s soul is the foundation.
We disagree on the foundation, but I will have to write a whole post in order to state where I think the “foundation” of values should arise from. If you are arguing simply where you think that they do, then we may be having a different conversation. Again, I’m not looking to the past or other cultures, as an anthropologist would, nor am I looking to God as a theist would. I think there is one clear foundational aspect of all life: “life is an end in and of itself.” From that and with a mutual respect for other life, my values arise. I certainly cannot argue that it isn’t because of my “nature” or my “soul” or a “determined” existence, but all the evidence for those is circumstantial and would not win a case in court if we use the “innocent until proven guilty” standard.
Oh! You’re a Randian. That explains a lot.
I am? Because I accept that life is an end in and of itself? OK; I’m so glad there is a “proper” label to discount my argument with.
I’ve read an essay or two of Rand, but I’ll bump her up on the “to read” list.
[...] today and since I don’t have time to read Ayn Rand today (though I need to, following the Barefoot Bums labeling me as “Randian”), I figured that I would quickly surf YouTube to get some interesting videos to post here. [...]
Hi Patrick. It is an “indicator” when you get called a “Randian.” It means you’ve come up against someone hostile to Ayn Rand but more subtle than those who call Objectivists “Randroids” etc. They still want to smash Miss Rand, however.
It could be that they enjoy the ‘booster’ from invoking the penumbra of ‘cult’ which is so old and so ludicrous yet serves as a remote-control argument from intimidation. They also do not want to give any respect by actually allowing the term “Objectivist” into their statements; they deny it is a philosophy. Some hold that Objectivism is merely the construct of an angry bitch with a “case” against Communism who wants to simply spew her vile, and who ‘backed into’ a pseudo-philosophy, ethics and politics to make her personal hatreds appear justified by deep intellectual roots. I’ve also found that many Rand thrashers are simply radical skeptics; they cannot abide any claim to absolute objectivity whatsoever, and seem to hate Rand’s metaphysics more than those of religious thinkers.
Those are just a few generic suggestions, you’ll have to find out the reality of each hostile attacker as you uncover them, should you decide to indeed read more of Rand.
As for Barefoot Bum I had an encounter with him, and challenged him on this point. He did not really concede anything, but he stopped calling me a “Randian.” He allowed that I was more commonsensical than most (he would not say the word “Objectivist”) Rand Fans and challenged me to debate closely. I declined to do so; I do not have the time and energy to devote to a serious interaction like that. While I do not agree with BB’s stances, I would rate his interaction with me at quite a high level above the usual hostile. We agreed to have a beer together next time either of us are in each other’s town. If he reads this, I still consider that an open invitation.
But notice in your interaction he was rolling along with his arguments, but when he “discovered” you read Ayn Rand, he dropped all argument and simply posted a fallacious smear tactic! Quite revealing!
Since you a poster of videos, I’d like to mention “qtronman”, a very good Objectivist, and one who is helpful in the attacks hostiles make against Rand’s position on the word “selfishness” and on her iconoclastic denunciation of Immanuel Kant, on the is-ought thing, etc.
His take on Is-Ought might be instructive if you are of the mind to source a foundational non-theological basis for ethics.
http://www.youtube.com/user/qtronman
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
[...] a Good Life With God Posted in September 12th, 2008 by Jeffrey Stingerstein in atheism As I argued over the summer, you don’t need to believe in “God” in order to be “good.” I’m [...]
[...] But of course the self-promoter in me makes me want to share my post on morality from back in July, Morality Is Not Objective. So What? [...]
[...] Morality Is Not Objective. So What? posted at Disillusioned Words. [...]
[...] fact, so is inaction!! The accusation of morality/immorality is as subjective as I am! There is no objective morality. My greatest error in the original post may well have been to use the words “moral [...]
[...] Morality Is Not Objective. So What? [July 7, [...]
Leave A Reply