Simple question, but surely the most important of all questions. If there are objective moral truths, what are they?
221 thoughts on “THE moral code”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
That’s the example I was thinking of; I’m not aware of any other examples he’s given us. Does Murray owe us other examples besides that one? I’m not sure he does. At any rate, I don’t think it would be difficult to come up with a list of “self-evident moral truths”, e.g. “it is always wrong to rape, to murder, to torture, etc.” — on my view, all applications of the categorical imperative.
Two distinct problems that I’d like to keep in mind here — and which are important both for understanding what Murray is saying and what I myself find problematic about it — are the interpretation of “self-evident” and the justification/explanation distinction.
Firstly, “self-evident” could be taken to mean “non-inferential” or to mean “presuppositionless.” Murray seems to equate those senses, and I think that’s a serious mistake (it is, in fact, what Sellars called the Myth of the Given).
Secondly, putatively self-evident truths (moral or otherwise) do not require justification — if they did, they wouldn’t be ‘self-evident’. But they still could call for explanation of how we came to occupy the cognitive space in which we are aware of those self-evident truths as self-evident truths. Murray thinks that only theism offers an intellectually satisfying explanation of how we came to appreciate self-evident moral truths.
It’s not a “caricature”, it’s the logical ramification of subjective morality. If morality is based, ultimately, on how each individual feels, then “because I feel like it” is ultimately the root of subjectivist morality. which can rationalize anything.
Perhaps you can explain to me where, under moral subjectivism, “rights” come from, and why one doesn’t, as you claim, have the right to act simply because they say so, or simply because they have the might to act however they feel like acting. Why don’t they have that right? Because you say so? Because the law says so? Because society says so?
The only way you can deny someone’s right to have a “because I say so” morality, without an assumed objective, natural law arbiter, is because your or someone else says so.
There can’t be any other reason, under subjective morality. You’re swallowing your own tail here.
I might feel obligated to respond had I ever made the claim that theists behave more morally than atheists, or if it was in any remote way important to my argument.
My argument only requires that whomever wishes to take up the argument and I agree that a single self-evident, objective (transcending varying conceptual frameworks) moral truth exists.
I’m not trying to bring a list of do’s and don’ts down from some mountaintop. I leave that to individuals to figure out on their own. I’m just pointing out the glaring flaw in most atheist’s belief systems when it comes to morality.
I’m not asserting that William owes anything.
WJM stated that aspects of the moral code are self-evident. I’d like to know what those are. It’s a question.
Sorry for the delayed response…
I agree that specific mandates are intersubjective (at best) rather than objective. However,I do think that the ethical foundations that make for a harmonious society can be predicted objectively. Humans naturally form societies that include personal relationships and group relationships that work collaboratively. We have a sense of empathy and a sense of fairness. These things are observables in all societies, and there should be predictable sets of expectations and balances that arise just by virtue of interpersonal social interactions.
“Moral Codes” are overprinted on top of these fundamental ethical standards by individual cultures, and may override them, but even considering that, if you look at a large enough selection of cultures, you should find enough ethical principles that are in common among most of them to begin to arrive at an objective overview of what ethical principles are likely to be, and how they are likely to be expressed.
This all begs the question, “why should one accept that morality is about making for a harmonious society” in the first place.
Sure, assuming that morality is fundamentally about what you claim it is about in the first place, but that’s where the “because I say so” question gets begged; what gives you the right or authority to say that is what morality is about in the first place?
You can make an argument for “how to create the most harmonious and productive society”, but that’s only your subjective (and a group subjective) conceputal framework of “what morality is”, and it can only be installed and enforced via “because I say so” authority if it is not presumed to be – objectively – what morality is about, whether other societies or cultures agree or not.
Then you’re back to the problem of justifying how an objective morality exists. it’s a conundrum that atheism cannot solve.
I thought you weren’t arguing against atheists per se, but against atheists who hold there to be objective moral truths?
fG
I have already given you examples. One can reason from first principles such as the Golden Rule, minimising overall suffering, maximising the common good etc. etc. Such justifications have nothing to do with ‘just because I say so’. In any case not any more than you ‘just saying’ which moral concepts are self-evidently true! There is simply no difference in foundational strength between these two positions, because both are equally subjective.
fG
There is nothing worse for someone seeking public office in the US than to be an atheist. That is the kiss of death in nearly every political election. There are very few people in public office, in state legislatures, and in the US Congress who dare to openly admit to being an atheist.
This raises an interesting question about which groups tend to harbor bigotry and a willingness to persecute others in this country. I would suggest that prejudice and vengefulness tends show up among a higher percentage of “theists” (sectarians) than in atheists.
The self-righteous presumptions of sectarians has caused more social ill will, with their punishments and persecutions directed at women, the LBGT community, and other people who don’t subscribe to deities or particular religious dogmas.
Atheists don’t sit in churches demonizing others as many sectarians seem prone to do habitually. Sectarians see demons everywhere that don’t deserve humane treatment; especially atheists.
Sectarians will link the words “materialist,” “Darwinist,” and “evolutionist” with the word “atheist,” knowing full well that fellow sectarians will see the people to whom these labels are attached as evil and without moral standards. Persons committing crimes are often quickly labeled by sectarians as atheists.
We generally don’t hear of atheists picking on other people and attempting to limit their rights by force of law; but we sure as hell see these kinds of activity with the sectarians who now dominate Republican politics and state legislatures.
Atheists don’t pass laws requiring sectarians to teach evolution in churches; but sectarians are constantly active in pushing legislation to get sectarian dogma in the form of pseudoscience into public education and evolution excluded.
If I were given a choice between an atheist and a sectarian about which could be trusted and which would generally be more considerate of others regardless of the religious beliefs of others, I would pick the atheist.
Atheists generally understand moral responsibility; sectarians have to be held in check by a belief in a deity that will punish them for eternity. Sectarians don’t feel obligated to extend any moral consideration to atheists. Atheists are “The Enemy” and will burn in hell.
Atheists are more likely to assume responsibility for their actions. Sectarians believe they will be forgiven for their “sins” if they commit some atrocity toward an atheist.
I suspect William is continuing to look for excuses to demonize atheists with innuendo that atheists are morally inferior and without any moral compass. I would suggest that superior morality is not the exclusive domain of sectarians.
You don’t understand the problem, and I don’t expect that you will no matter how many times I explain it to you.
How do you justify using the golden rule as your moral compass in the first place? Under your subjective morality paradigm, it’s just your subjective feeling, so it can only be “because I feel like it”, which is another form of “because I say so”.
William J. Murray,
And how do you justify your choice of what is a self-evident moral truth, and what is not? It’s just your subjective feeling so it can only be “because I feel like it”, which is another form of “because I say so”.
fG
Neither can theism. You demand an explanation from atheists, but you haven’t given any God-based explanation of how objective morality can exist.
Then perhaps it would be enlightening for everybody if you were to detail the do’s and don’ts that you have figured out yourself? After all, you spend so much time explaining to people why athiests cannot “figure it out on their own” it would be illuminating to know what others who can do that can “figure out”.
I mean, all you’ve said so far is “torturing babies is bad, m’kay”. Is there actually anything more profound then that? Any other precepts to live by? As I generally make it a point not to torture babies in any case so far your wisdom from the mountaintop is somewhat irrelevant.
Not that I’m saying that you are claiming to be brining wisdom from the mountaintop, of course. That’s accepted. But there’s no right and wrong here. Given your ability to “figure it out in the only framework that makes sense” you presumably have some actual insight derived from doing that, otherwise that defeats your entire point.
What have you figured out William?
Sure I have. Oughts refer to a purpose. Purpose exists in some aspect of the mind. While much of our minds are subjective, some aspects of them are connected to universal mind (god), which make them objective and accessible for every sentient, intelligent, sane mind not in denial about them, such as the principles of logic, math, geometry, and self-evidently true moral statements.
IOW, part of our minds are part of the universal, objective mind of god. I don’t consider the mind to be one thing, but rather a term that refers to a large host of phenomena, one of which is our connection to universal, objectively true mental commodities.
I didn’t say atheists cannot figure out proper moral behavior on their own. In fact, I’ve said just the opposite. All I’ve said is that they refuse to accept that their actual morality as they practice and advocate is not reconcilable with their worldview premises.
You’ve just hoisted yourself up on your own petard.
Self-evident truths don’t require justification by definition. Unless you are claiming that “the golden rule” is the self-evident basis for morality, you do have to justify why one should use it, and not some other principle (which cannot be done under moral subjectivity). If you do claim it is self-evident, then it needn’t be justified, but you do need to explain how self-evident moral truths can exist under your worldview premises.
See, that’s the whole point. If you don’t assume that there is a self-evidently true, objective basis for morality, you’ve only got “because I say so” to justify any particular maxim. The only way out of that is if a self-evidently true, objective basis for morality exists (or at least assumed to exist); but if you make that claim (in order to escape “because I say so” morality), then you’ve got to explain how a self-evidently true, objective morality can be rationally reconciled with your worldview; and for that, you need theism.
You either subjectively assume that your moral basis is self-evidently true (thus requiring no justification) and refers to an objective commodity (this providing for moral rights and obligations, regardless of the views of others), or you subjectively assume your moral basis is subjective, and since one assumes no objective moral compass exists, you can – logically – only hold it and act on it “because you say so”, whether you admit it or not.
Whether or not I have any particular moral insights, in terms of behavioral do’s and don’ts, is so irrelevant to the point of my argument that this statement of yours makes it obvious that you still have no idea what my argument is actually about.
There’s a reason the founding forefathers began the Declaration of Independence with “
The forefathers knew they must refer to Natural Law, something beyond the relative laws of man, consensus, human authority or social convention, in order to rationally justify breaking their fealty and legal binding to the crown, so that their position would be accepted and viewed with honor and rational agreement by other countries considering establishing formal relations.
“Because we say so” just doesn’t cut it, and doesn’t warrant any respect or rational consideration. Materialism and Darwinism and atheism don’t “endow man with certain unalienable rights” other than “because I feel like it” and “because I say so”.
William,
I know that one cannot justify a subjective moral system with reference to an objective standard. I have said so all along and I have no problems with this. It is you who claims to have found a way around this by invoking so-called self-evident moral truths, therefore objective moral truths, therefore a God who is the origin of them.
You really need to make the effort to understand that claiming such and so moral concept is self-evident is a subjective claim, and with that your entire argument about objective moral systems collapses like a house of cards. Saying that self-evident moral truths don’t need justification is all well and good, but who decides what moral concept is self-evidently true and which one is not? Answer: every person (from those who subscribe to your theory) for themself. In other words, your self-evident truths are not objective at all, but merely the (quite possibly widely diverging) subjective views of individual people.
Which puts you in exactly the same position as moral subjectivists. Your claim is simply invalid.
fG
William J. Murray,
Your argument is circular.
You assert that the existence of just one objective moral truth establishes that something like God exists, while simultaneously citing the existence of something like God to justify the claim that objective moral truths can exist.
It’s all hanging in thin air.
Sectarian: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is most moral of us all?”
Mirror: “Well, there is this atheist – she is living with some little people out there in a tiny hut in the woods – who manages to best you every time.”
Sectarian (smashing mirror): “Damn; this is not fair! Break out the poison apples; we’re gonna make sure that little bitch dies!”
If one looks at most definitions of either “ethical” or “moral”, whether or not objectivity is claimed, the “correct” strategy is not necessarily that which is best for the individual, but that which is best for the society.
Ethics and morals are not individual standards, but group standards. Whether or not it can be considered objective depends on what group is doing the defining. If the standards are defined by the individual, they cannot be objective. If they are defined by the local culture, they cannot be objective. If they grow out of the definition of what is “humanity”, then there may be objectivity.
Sounds like the flaw you’re pointing out is universal, and not limited to atheists. Just a quick perusal of the Bible shows that a “single self-evident, objective (transcending varying conceptual frameworks) moral truth” doesn’t even consistently appear within its pages.
Indeed, we are still waiting for the objective moral truths requested in the OP.
Telling.
fG
What else would it be about? Is it begging the question to state that language is about facilitating communication? Is it begging the question to state that eyes are about seeing? Seems like a pretty straightforward uncontroversial statement to me. I suppose you could respond that “no, morality is REALLY about making sure one’s ankles are modestly covered”, or “no, morality is REALLY about making my fellow humans as miserable as possible”, but that would be a bit of a misdirection, wouldn’t it?
I suppose if you have an idiosyncratic view about what morality is about, it would explain some of the communication problems you’re having.
And it’s that “figuring out” bit that I was referencing. If you were to give a few other examples of what *you* have figured out regarding “proper moral behaviour” then that would be responsive to the intent of my original question. If you don’t want to do that, fine.
You see,
I suspect that what you have “worked out” regarding “objective morality” would be very interesting indeed.
In fact, how about this.I admit that actual my morality as I practice and advocate it is not reconcilable with my worldview premises.
Now, about your morality and how you practice it? Don’t you think it’s about time we got to that?
Who cares about, or said anything about, the Bible?
Idiosyncratic view about morality? Please find me any standard dictionary definition of “morality” that contains a definition that supports your claim about “morality is about”.
For billions of people, for hundreds of years, “morality” has been about “doing as god commands”, not “how to construct a happy, productive society”, and you’re the one trying to paint yourself as not having an idiosyncratic view of morality?
That you can ask “what else would it be about” as if your idiosyncratic definition was the default version, even though it appears in no standard dictionary as such, shows how little you’ve actually thought about this. You’re just spouting stuff off now to defend views and ideas cobbled together without any rational analysis, trying to keep it together by definitional fiat.
It’s got nothing to do with the argument. You’re just fishing for drama.
Nope. IF we agree that a self-evident, objective moral truth exists, that is not “hanging in the air”; that is our accepted premise. Once we accept that, THEN we must explain, from our worldview premises, how such a thing can exist. Only theism provides for objective moral truths (true regardless of conceptual framework). Atheism cannot provide a sound basis for such a thing.
If you deny that such a thing exists, then we have no common ground for argument about what worldview premises are necessary to support it. In that case, however, your morality cannot ultimately be anything more than “because I (or we) feel like it”.
You either agree that self-evident, objective true moral statements exist, or you hold your moral premise, even “the golden rule” or “the categorical imperative” by the power of, ultimately, nothing more than “because I (we) feel like it”. I know of no third way. You either believe in an objective standard, or you necessarily admit your morality is based nothing but subjective feelings, which can justify any behavior.
Well, he’s caught the queen.
The two people having the debate.
Again, you don’t understand the parameters and focus of the argument. It doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks; it doesn’t matter who decides what subjectively. The only thing that matters is if **you** agree that the statement X is self-evidently and objectively true. If you disagree that “it’s wrong to torture children for personal pleasure” is both self-evidently and objectively true, then my argument doesn’t apply to you.
However, if you deny that there are self-evidently, objectively true moral principles, then you can’t claim any moral high ground over anyone else that does anything for any reason, because there is no “moral high ground”. If that’s the case, why bother calling anything “morality”? All you and anyone else is doing is whatever they feel like.
Subjectively objectively true. Got it, thanks.
William J. Murray,
However, if you deny that there are self-evidently, objectively true moral principles, then you can’t claim any moral high ground over anyone else that does anything for any reason, because there is no “moral high ground”.
I deny that there are self-evidently, objectively true moral principles AND I claim the moral high ground. My moral high ground is self-evidently true to me and my conscience.
All you and anyone else is doing is whatever they feel like.
We all do whatever we feel like. I feel like doing what my conscience demands.
An issue can be subjective and yet one opinion can be better than another in the sense that one person may know or realise things that if the other one knew them he would change his (subjective) mind. There may be no ultimate moral high ground but one opinion can prove to be higher than another in practice.
And whatever your moral view, being moral is certainly not just a case of doing what you feel like – it is case of doing what you think is right – quite different.
Torturing babies for fun. That’s as far as we appear to have got. Maybe a year ago.
Can you defend the ‘most atheists’ part?
These are not ‘self-evident’ in the analytic sense. Since this is explicitly what he means, by extension into 1+1 = 2, 4-sided triangles etc, then this is where the whole argument falls down. They are only self-evidently true to people, and then only certain people.
Self-consistency, thy name is William J. Murray
What’s cool is that he can so easily contradict himself in back-to-back posts.
You’re still going in circles. Premises do, in fact hang in thin air. We stipulate premises, reasoning “as if” they are true. They aren’t grounded in explanations. Having stipuated those levitating premises we pursue what follows from them. But whatever follows from them is ultimately no more grounded in any absolute sense than the premises themselves. If, as you claim, what follows perforce from the stipulation of a moral absolute “explains” the possibility of, and illuminates the nature of, moral absolutes (something God-like this way comes, and makes moral absolutes possible) that explanation is no more grounded then the premises themselves.
It’s all hanging in thin air.
‘Worldview premises’: There’s no God.
‘How ought I to behave?’: Well, there’s this real thing called other people, and a society, and my place in it, and constraints such as guilt and the pleasure that ensures from a kindly act.
Nothing about ‘ought’ is irreconcilable with the basic position ‘there is no God’. Your main objection, outside of equivocating on ‘objective’, seems to be this boogeyman ‘might makes right’. But if (say) I return to a bar where I neglected to pay my bill, I am not forcing anyone else to do the same (though I do believe most of us would do the same).
On the occasions where competing viewpoints conflict, we have a problem. In any worldview.
Christians. Do we have to restrict ourselves to discussing YOU?
Why would they be debating if the moral truth is self-evident?
They would be debating about what worldview premises are capable of rationally supporting that view. Which is exactly what I’m doing with anyone who (1) agrees that statement is self-evidently true and objective, and (2) if they disagree that there are such things as self-evidently true and objective moral statements, what the necessary logical ramifications are.
No they don’t, but even if they d\did, If they are agreed upon by those debating, that doesn’t matter.
That doesn’t change the fact that if you agree to the premise, God becomes necessary to have a rationally consistent worldview, and if you disagree with the premise, then morality ultimately boils down to “because I feel like it”, which justifies anything and everything.
You can’t have a “little” objectivity, or a “little” subjective. When it comes to morality, they’re either based on something objective and self-evident, or they are nothing but subjective feelings, like “I feel like the golden rule is the right source” or “I feel like the Koran is the right source” for morality.
Pick your poison, atheists. Agree with the premise, and you can’t be an atheist; disagree with the premise, and your morality becomes entirely relative and subjective, nothing more than “because I feel like it”.
Whether or not the premise is in fact true is irrelevant to the point; you can agree with it, or disagree with it, and the consequences are that you cannot be an atheist and claim what anyone else does is “wrong” except by the principle “because I say so”.
There’s no contradiction there. Those are two entirely separate points about two entirely different things. I’m not claiming any holy book serves up better behavior or moral guidelines than any other; and I’m pointing out that it is your definition of morality that is idiosyncratic and at odds with how most billions have defined it, whether or not their definition is a good one.
‘Because I feel like it’ does not, however, equate to a free-for-all. I fancy women because ‘I feel like it’. That does not mean I could simply switch gender preference, nor that my attractedness is simply derived from my untethered Mind.
Choose your poison, theist. “Because I think this is what [god, who may or may not exist] wants”.