Is morality objective or subjective?

[bahman]

I think it can. It at least has evidence for its claims, and it at least can make sense on its own terms -- if God turns out to exist, as we say. Atheism cannot do that much, even.

Let's assume that God exists! How could you prove that morality is objective by reason?

Oh, you've made it too easy. You gave me all I needed in the first premise.

If God exists, and He created this world, then He alone know for certain what all its right uses are. It's objectively designed for objective moral outcomes...and objective morality is built right into the system.

Give me a harder challenge, if you've got one.

You said that God knows for certain what is right and what is wrong. Do you mean that God has a reason? What is His reason for X being morally wrong and Y being morally right (X and Y are two moral instances such as abortion and loving your neighbor)?

[Immanuel Can]

Let's assume that God exists! How could you prove that morality is objective by reason?

Oh, you've made it too easy. You gave me all I needed in the first premise.

If God exists, and He created this world, then He alone know for certain what all its right uses are. It's objectively designed for objective moral outcomes...and objective morality is built right into the system.

Give me a harder challenge, if you've got one.

You said that God knows for certain what is right and what is wrong. Do you mean that God has a reason?

Not "a reason." God is a God of reason. He doesn't do things for no purpose, and the world operates according to rational laws -- which is what makes science possible, actually. Moreover, mankind is constituted as a rational being...hence he can access and use science to reason out the way things work.

But in the matters of ethics, what is "right" is when any creature acts in accordance with the divine purpose for that creature. What is "wrong" is when that creature does not do so. And, of course, when we talk about ethics, we're speaking only of humans, since animals do not know what right and wrong are, but are driven by instinct and their biological nature instead.

[bahman]

Oh, you've made it too easy. You gave me all I needed in the first premise.

If God exists, and He created this world, then He alone know for certain what all its right uses are. It's objectively designed for objective moral outcomes...and objective morality is built right into the system.

Give me a harder challenge, if you've got one.

You said that God knows for certain what is right and what is wrong. Do you mean that God has a reason?

Not "a reason." God is a God of reason. He doesn't do things for no purpose, and the world operates according to rational laws -- which is what makes science possible, actually. Moreover, mankind is constituted as a rational being...hence he can access and use science to reason out the way things work.

If God is God of reason then He should have a reason why something is right and why another thing is wrong. Could we agree on this? If yes, then why for example abortion is wrong according to God? I am asking for a reason.

But in the matters of ethics, what is "right" is when any creature acts in accordance with the divine purpose for that creature. What is "wrong" is when that creature does not do so...

I asked what is God's reason for an action to be right or wrong. If there is reason for X to be wrong then we humans should have access to that reason as well. So again, why abortion is wrong from your point of view? I am asking for a reason.

[Immanuel Can]

If God is God of reason then He should have a reason why something is right and why another thing is wrong. Could we agree on this?

No, because it creates a false dichotomy between two things: reason, and the nature of God. You're positioning reason as something God "has," not something that "is" in the very nature of God. Likewise, your way of framing the situation makes "right" and "according to the will of God" into two different things, when they're identical.

So we can't pose the question in the way you want to pose it, without already having made a serious mistake in our thinking. We'll need to straighten that out before we can even begin.

If there is reason for X to be wrong then we humans should have access to that reason as well.

That's the problem: your supposition isn't correct. God doesn't "have" reasons: the reasons for things being the way they are is that God made them that. There's no "reason," prior to that act, that God has to answer to. God acts out of His own nature, not because a kind of moral nature pre-exists Him; nothing does. And it is our conception of morality that is derivative from His original creative act; the original creative act is not beholden or accountable to our human concept of morality.

[bahman]

If God is God of reason then He should have a reason why something is right and why another thing is wrong. Could we agree on this?

No, because it creates a false dichotomy between two things: reason, and the nature of God.

You're positioning reason as something God "has," not something that "is" in the very nature of God. Likewise, your way of framing the situation makes "right" and "according to the will of God" into two different things, when they're identical.

So we can't pose the question in the way you want to pose it, without already having made a serious mistake in our thinking. We'll need to straighten that out before we can even begin.

OK, I understand that. So the reason is the very nature of God. I am however asking whether God can provide a reason why something is morally right or wrong.

If there is reason for X to be wrong then we humans should have access to that reason as well.

That's the problem: your supposition isn't correct. God doesn't "have" reasons: the reasons for things being the way they are is that God made them that. There's no "reason," prior to that act, that God has to answer to. God acts out of His own nature, not because a kind of moral nature pre-exists Him; nothing does. And it is our conception of morality that is derivative from His original creative act; the original creative act is not beholden or accountable to our human concept of morality.

So to you, God cannot provide a reason why an action is morally right or wrong?

[Immanuel Can]

If God is God of reason then He should have a reason why something is right and why another thing is wrong. Could we agree on this?

No, because it creates a false dichotomy between two things: reason, and the nature of God.

You're positioning reason as something God "has," not something that "is" in the very nature of God. Likewise, your way of framing the situation makes "right" and "according to the will of God" into two different things, when they're identical.

So we can't pose the question in the way you want to pose it, without already having made a serious mistake in our thinking. We'll need to straighten that out before we can even begin.

OK, I understand that. So the reason is the very nature of God. I am however asking whether God can provide a reason why something is morally right or wrong.

Yes. For example, he can say, "I am the Lord your God; therefore, you will have no gods besides Me." That's a reason. But I think what you're trying to ask is maybe "What is the independent reason why God says X is good or bad," meaning, "What is the non-God-related reason that abortion is wrong?" And I think that such reasons can be given; but they will not be the ultimate or final reason why that action is wrong. It will be merely one of the reasons we may rightly regard X as wrong.

So, for example, we can say abortion is wrong because it murders a child. But that's not the ultimate reason, because somebody can ask, "Why is it wrong to murder a child?" And the ultimate reason is that God designed and gave that child life, so in killing her, one is acting against God.

So to you, God cannot provide a reason why an action is morally right or wrong?

God IS the reason things are right or wrong. There's no "court of appeal" prior to God Himself. There are no higher reasons, no more ultimate answers. All other answers are secondary and down-the-line from the ultimate reason, which is God Himself.

[bahman]

No, because it creates a false dichotomy between two things: reason, and the nature of God.

You're positioning reason as something God "has," not something that "is" in the very nature of God. Likewise, your way of framing the situation makes "right" and "according to the will of God" into two different things, when they're identical.

So we can't pose the question in the way you want to pose it, without already having made a serious mistake in our thinking. We'll need to straighten that out before we can even begin.

OK, I understand that. So the reason is the very nature of God. I am however asking whether God can provide a reason why something is morally right or wrong.

Yes. For example, he can say, "I am the Lord your God; therefore, you will have no gods besides Me." That's a reason.

I am sorry, but that is merely a command. What is the reason for that? What God asks is merely subjective if He does not have any reason for that.

But I think what you're trying to ask is maybe "What is the independent reason why God says X is good or bad," meaning, "What is the non-God-related reason that abortion is wrong?" And I think that such reasons can be given; but they will not be the ultimate or final reason why that action is wrong. It will be merely one of the reasons we may rightly regard X as wrong.

I am trying to get to a point, objective morality. How could we agree about objective morality if people could not agree on that!? We need a reason for any moral decision, if there is any then morality is objective, otherwise it is subjective.

So, for example, we can say abortion is wrong because it murders a child. But that's not the ultimate reason, because somebody can ask, "Why is it wrong to murder a child?" And the ultimate reason is that God designed and gave that child life, so in killing her, one is acting against God.

That I am afraid is subjective.

So to you, God cannot provide a reason why an action is morally right or wrong?

God IS the reason things are right or wrong. There's no "court of appeal" prior to God Himself. There are no higher reasons, no more ultimate answers. All other answers are secondary and down-the-line from the ultimate reason, which is God Himself.

That does not cut. If what God asks is right because of His nature then what you call reason which is not a reason is biased by the nature of God. Therefore what God asks is subjective instead of objective.

[Harbal]

So this isn't unthinking, on your part? Great. What gives you that confidence. Let's see the data.

I'm afraid I can only offer you my word as a gentleman that I have no such fear.

And I believe you.

And yet, the question remains as to whether or not you should.

If I thought I had anything to fear from God, I would probably fear it. I'm not a particularly brave soul.

Well I have never witnessed anything supernatural, and, to the best of my knowledge, no one is able to to reliably demonstrate any kind of supernatural phenomenon.

Did you not say, though, that going beyond what you can say is not appropriate? Accepting, as I do, that you don't believe in God, the fact that you don't personally know God, or know any evidence for God, is unsurprising. But it's also nothing more than a personal confession of ignorance of those things or facts, not some sort of a case that anybody should agree with you.

What about ghosts, reincarnation, telepathy and psychokinesis, should my absence of experience of them lead me to the conclusion that I should also take those things seriously? I have my own sense of the nature of reality and of what may or may not be possible, and I can only judge the likelihood of something in reference to that sense.

Furthermore, science, or indeed Scientism, never looks for supernatural explanations to its unanswered questions, so it would seem very presumptuous of me behave as if I know better.

Science never looks to the supernatural for explanations not because there aren't any, but because science is not something that can deal with such things. It's the limitedness of science, not the absence of reality of metaphysical things, that is the real problem there.

But the supernatural doesn't explain anything; it's just a way of saying something can't be explained.

Would it? Well you must be envisaging something that I have hitherto been unable to.

As you have said, you have no personal knowledge of these things. But I think there's an element of the disingenuous in your claim not to be able to see the relevant evidence. Anybody can recognize the basic fact of design in nature. So that, at the very least, cannot possibly be beyond your experience. But it may be beyond your willingness to recognize...that's possible.

Anything resembling design in nature can be accounted for by evolution, in my opinion, but you already know that is my opinion.

[Immanuel Can]

OK, I understand that. So the reason is the very nature of God. I am however asking whether God can provide a reason why something is morally right or wrong.

Yes. For example, he can say, "I am the Lord your God; therefore, you will have no gods besides Me." That's a reason.

I am sorry, but that is merely a command. What is the reason for that? What God asks is merely subjective if He does not have any reason for that.

I was right: you want a God-independent reason. I'm sorry: you'll never find one. Ultimately, God is the stopping-point for every "why" question.

We need a reason for any moral decision, if there is any then morality is objective, otherwise it is subjective.

We always have a reason grounded in God. But I think you're talking more about a "motive," rather than a "reason." The two are sometimes used as synonyms. But human motives and the ultimate reasons for things are actually quite different.

So, for example, we can say abortion is wrong because it murders a child. But that's not the ultimate reason, because somebody can ask, "Why is it wrong to murder a child?" And the ultimate reason is that God designed and gave that child life, so in killing her, one is acting against God.

That I am afraid is subjective.

No, it's objective. If God exists, then it's certainly true that God made the child, ultimately. There's nothing at all subjective about that.

[Immanuel Can]

What about ghosts, reincarnation, telepathy and psychokinesis, should my absence of experience of them lead me to the conclusion that I should also take those things seriously? I have my own sense of the nature of reality and of what may or may not be possible, and I can only judge the likelihood of something in reference to that sense.

That doesn't seem right. That would mean you could never obtain any new knowledge or experiences, because you'd rule out anything you didn't already "have a sense of." But I doubt that's the way you operate.

There are metaphysical claims we should doubt, of course: reincarnation, telepathy, etc., because we have scientific grounds for doing so, adequate to the subject in doubt. Then there are metaphysical claims we really cannot doubt: that we exist, that we have minds, that reality means something and is, in some sense, present to us, that science and logic are useful, and so on. Then there are the middle metaphysical claims: those we are not sure of, but which we can explore. The whole question is, "To which of these three categories does God belong?"

Furthermore, science, or indeed Scientism, never looks for supernatural explanations to its unanswered questions, so it would seem very presumptuous of me behave as if I know better.

Science never looks to the supernatural for explanations not because there aren't any, but because science is not something that can deal with such things. It's the limitedness of science, not the absence of reality of metaphysical things, that is the real problem there.

But the supernatural doesn't explain anything; it's just a way of saying something can't be explained.

I don't remember invoking "the supernatural," but we can use that word if you prefer it. I would say, "the transcendent" or "the metaphysical," rather than "supernatural, " because "supernaturalism" is a word with baggage, and "metaphysical" has the good implication of something not contrary to the physical but supplemental to it.

And we all know metaphysical realities exist. One such is the phenomenon of "persuasion," which we are involved in now. Another is "minds," which we are engaging to do that task. A third is "identity," which you and I depend on to locate the origins of our relative opinions. Another is morality or ethics, which we frequently draw on to make arguments, even when we may claim it's all subjective. For that matter, "subjectivity" is a metaphyscial reality in which we all trust. Another is "aesthetic judgment," which we use to say how interested we are in a topic, but which science cannot really tell us is good or bad...and so on.

Science is great on the physical stuff; but we've all already seen how bad it is on metaphysics. It's a very-good-but-limited kind of thing.

[Immanuel Can]

What about ghosts, reincarnation, telepathy and psychokinesis, should my absence of experience of them lead me to the conclusion that I should also take those things seriously? I have my own sense of the nature of reality and of what may or may not be possible, and I can only judge the likelihood of something in reference to that sense.

That doesn't seem right. That would mean you could never obtain any new knowledge or experiences, because you'd rule out anything you didn't already "have a sense of." But I doubt that's the way you operate.

There are metaphysical claims we should doubt, of course: reincarnation, telepathy, etc., because we have scientific grounds for doing so, adequate to the subject in doubt. Then there are metaphysical claims we really cannot doubt: that we exist, that we have minds, that reality means something and is, in some sense, present to us, that science and logic are useful, and so on. Then there are the middle metaphysical claims: those we are not sure of, but which we can explore. The whole question is, "To which of these three categories does God belong?"

Furthermore, science, or indeed Scientism, never looks for supernatural explanations to its unanswered questions, so it would seem very presumptuous of me behave as if I know better.

Science never looks to the supernatural for explanations not because there aren't any, but because science is not something that can deal with such things. It's the limitedness of science, not the absence of reality of metaphysical things, that is the real problem there.

But the supernatural doesn't explain anything; it's just a way of saying something can't be explained.

I don't remember invoking "the supernatural," but we can use that word if you prefer it. I would say, "the transcendent" or "the metaphysical," rather than "supernatural, " because "supernaturalism" is a word with baggage, and "metaphysical" has the good implication of something not contrary to the physical but supplemental to it.

And we all know metaphysical realities exist. One such is the phenomenon of "persuasion," which we are involved in now. Another is "minds," which we are engaging to do that task. A third is "identity," which you and I depend on to locate the origins of our relative opinions. Another is morality or ethics, which we frequently draw on to make arguments, even when we may claim it's all subjective. For that matter, "subjectivity" is a metaphyscial reality in which we all trust. Another is "aesthetic judgment," which we use to say how interested we are in a topic, but which science cannot really tell us is good or bad...and so on.

Science is great on the physical stuff; but we've all already seen how bad it is on metaphysics. It's a very-good-but-limited kind of thing.

[bahman]

Yes. For example, he can say, "I am the Lord your God; therefore, you will have no gods besides Me." That's a reason.

I am sorry, but that is merely a command. What is the reason for that? What God asks is merely subjective if He does not have any reason for that.

I was right: you want a God-independent reason. I'm sorry: you'll never find one. Ultimately, God is the stopping-point for every "why" question.

What do you mean by God-independent reason? A reason is something that any intellectual being can comprehend and agree with. In that sense, it is common among all intellectual beings, including God and humans.

We need a reason for any moral decision, if there is any then morality is objective, otherwise it is subjective.

We always have a reason grounded in God.

So give me one reason why abortion is wrong.

But I think you're talking more about a "motive," rather than a "reason." The two are sometimes used as synonyms. But human motives and the ultimate reasons for things are actually quite different.

No, I am not talking about motive.

So, for example, we can say abortion is wrong because it murders a child. But that's not the ultimate reason, because somebody can ask, "Why is it wrong to murder a child?" And the ultimate reason is that God designed and gave that child life, so in killing her, one is acting against God.

That I am afraid is subjective.

No, it's objective. If God exists, then it's certainly true that God made the child, ultimately. There's nothing at all subjective about that.

So what? Assume that God made the child. Is there any reason why abortion is wrong? If not then people follow subjective ideas when it comes to abortion.

[Immanuel Can]

I am sorry, but that is merely a command. What is the reason for that? What God asks is merely subjective if He does not have any reason for that.

I was right: you want a God-independent reason. I'm sorry: you'll never find one. Ultimately, God is the stopping-point for every "why" question.

What do you mean by God-independent reason?

A reason that would be a reason even if God didn't exist. But since God, as the First Cause, is the ultimate explanation or reason for everything, that's impossible. There are no such reasons to be had. "Reason" isn't itself some kind of metaphysical entity prior to God.

We need a reason for any moral decision, if there is any then morality is objective, otherwise it is subjective.

We always have a reason grounded in God.

So give me one reason why abortion is wrong.

I did. You called it "subjective," even though it's an objective argument, about objective facts, and issuing in an objective moral duty.

That I am afraid is subjective.

No, it's objective. If God exists, then it's certainly true that God made the child, ultimately. There's nothing at all subjective about that.

So what? Assume that God made the child. Is there any reason why abortion is wrong?

Yes. Because the child belongs to God, by all rights. She's not the woman's to kill. And the woman herself is also entirely owned by God, by all rights; so she has no legitimate authority to murder her baby.

[bahman]

I was right: you want a God-independent reason. I'm sorry: you'll never find one. Ultimately, God is the stopping-point for every "why" question.

What do you mean by God-independent reason?

A reason that would be a reason even if God didn't exist.

If morality is objective then it means that humans can find a reason why an act is morally right or wrong, whether God exists or not.

But since God, as the First Cause, is the ultimate explanation or reason for everything, that's impossible.

What do you mean?

There are no such reasons to be had. "Reason" isn't itself some kind of metaphysical entity prior to God.

If morality is objective then it means that we can agree on why an act is morally right or wrong.

We always have a reason grounded in God.

So give me one reason why abortion is wrong.

I did. You called it "subjective," even though it's an objective argument, about objective facts, and issuing in an objective moral duty.

You just said because God says so. Because we are the property of God. That is not a reason.

No, it's objective. If God exists, then it's certainly true that God made the child, ultimately. There's nothing at all subjective about that.

So what? Assume that God made the child. Is there any reason why abortion is wrong?

Yes. Because the child belongs to God, by all rights. She's not the woman's to kill. And the woman herself is also entirely owned by God, by all rights; so she has no legitimate authority to murder her baby.

So God to you is a totalitarian being dictating everything to rational beings, humans, without providing a reason.

[Immanuel Can]

If morality is objective then it means that humans can find a reason why an act is morally right or wrong, whether God exists or not.

No. If morality is objective, it means that it's true whether or not human beings even know it is.

But since God, as the First Cause, is the ultimate explanation or reason for everything, that's impossible.

What do you mean?

I don't know if I can break it down any further for you: the First Cause of all things is the only final explanation there is, or ever could be. That's what "first" implies, there.

There are no such reasons to be had. "Reason" isn't itself some kind of metaphysical entity prior to God.

If morality is objective then it means that we can agree on why an act is morally right or wrong.

See above. It doesn't. It just means we should agree, because it's foolish and counterproductive to disbelieve in an objective truth.

So give me one reason why abortion is wrong.

I did. You called it "subjective," even though it's an objective argument, about objective facts, and issuing in an objective moral duty.

You just said because God says so. Because we are the property of God. That is not a reason.

It is. It's just not a reason that you like or will accept, perhaps. But it's the final reason.

So what? Assume that God made the child. Is there any reason why abortion is wrong?

Yes. Because the child belongs to God, by all rights. She's not the woman's to kill. And the woman herself is also entirely owned by God, by all rights; so she has no legitimate authority to murder her baby.

So God to you is a totalitarian being dictating everything to rational beings, humans, without providing a reason.

"Totalitarian"? No. Sovereign, yes. And He sometimes graciously tells us reasons for what He requires of us; but if He doesn't, He doesn't owe them to us, because you don't demand things of God. If God says it, then that's all that really needs to be said. Further reasons are only ever secondary.