Morality: Objective, Subjective, or...?

[Bravus]

(mods, the intention is that this thread be for philosophical discussion, not theology. If it trends to the latter I'm very happy for it to be moved to Theology Town Hall)

The issue of 'objective morality' has arisen in the 'Homosexuality...' thread, but I think it's been muddied by being discussed in that particular context.

It keeps coming up, so I thought it would make sense to discuss it in a dedicated thread.

I'll post a small amount of stimulus material, and will be happy to participate in the discussion and to try to be as clear as I can.

[Bravus]

In the other thread, Twilight II wrote:

Quote:

But that is not my point, my point is that there is either an absolute moral standard or their isn't, to deny that would be to state that two conflicting absolute statements are both correct at the same time.

I am stating there are two options for morality:

Objective / Absolute

Subjective / Non-Absolute

If you feel you have a third, I would like to see it, but I do not see any logical reason for assuming there is a third as there is no basis in reality to make such a claim.

If there is, then please explain it and supply your source.

[Bravus]

'Supply your source' seems to me to be part of the problem - the appeal to authority. The source of my (limited, partial, developing) understanding of morality is my own thinking about the issues, informed by the Bible, a huge range of authors and ideas, experience, others' experiences understood through conversations, movies, music, over a decade of forum discussions, blog posts... there is no single source, but a multitude of sources.

Better, then, to evaluate the ideas on their own merits, rather than to debate their source(s).

[Bravus]

Here's a blog post of mine from a few years ago, shared here as a starting place for discussion. It's long, and still not complete as a statement of my thinking on the matter, but I hope it's useful.

Theism, Atheism and Morality

It keeps on coming up in the wide variety of web discussion forums I read, as well as in face-to-face conversations: what is the relationship of religion and morality? For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll stick to Christian religion, since that is most often the context, it’s the context I know best and the discussion will get too unwieldy if I try to take on all religions. By ‘atheism’ I mean disbelief in any deity who acts as a supernatural guarantor of morality – that could include deism, I guess, and even some other sorts of gods. Often the pointy end of the argument is the existence of an afterlife where wrongs are righted and balance is restored – good that fails to be rewarded in this life and evil that fails to be punished is redressed there.

Christians tend to claim that, in the absence of God as a divine source and guarantor of morality, life is meaningless, good and evil are meaningless, and we may as well be absolute nihilists and hedonists who abuse others for our own pleasure. Let’s leave aside the slight suspicion that this simply reflects what they would really like to do, but the fear of God keeps them from, and realise that most of their arguments seem to come from the ‘fear of punishment/hope of reward’ level of moral reasoning. To be fair, though, some come from other levels, but it seems to be from the conviction that a moral code cannot be truly universal without a superhuman source.

They also tend to claim that all morality in the world has its source in Judeo-Christian influences in law and society – that when atheists act morally it’s through social pressure or a social code, but that it was Christianity that created that kind of society in the first place. That argument might be sustainable in Western countries such as the US that grew out of a Christian tradition, but it’s pretty hard to sustain with a broader view of the world and countries like China and India that are not at all founded in that tradition.

Anyway, as I have probably mentioned before, I find Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning to be an invaluable tool for thinking about these kind of questions. I thought it might be worthwhile to spend a little time looking at Kohlberg’s stages (or, as I tend to think of them, categories, since I’m less convinced by the notion of linear, unidirectional progress through them in a particular order) in the light of theism and atheism.

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)

1. Obedience and punishment orientation (How can I avoid punishment?)

2. Self-interest orientation (What’s in it for me?)

This is pretty easy to explain from a theist orientation: God, the judgement and afterlife punish the wicked and reward the virtuous, so ‘you’d better be good for goodness sake’. From an atheist perspective, it becomes about the here-and-now consequences, both positive and negative, of our actions: doing bad things can lead to arrest or fines from the authorities, divorce from our partners, ostracism from our friends and so on. Doing good things can lead to opportunities, positive rewards, esteem and so on. The punishments and rewards are on a different scale, but they’re definitely there.

Level 2 (Conventional)

3. Interpersonal accord and conformity (Social norms) (The good boy/good girl attitude)

4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation (Law and order morality)

From a theistic perspective, Stage 3, interpersonal conformity, is redefined somewhat. It’s not society’s approval (‘good boy, good girl’) that is being sought, but God’s. What is praiseworthy is largely defined by the Bible, and may even be in conflict with what the rest of society thinks (society is usually seen as corrupt anyway). Stage 4 is where many Christians, particularly those of a more fundamentalist1 stripe, tend to focus. The Ten Commandments is one very clear set of rules by which to live life, and of course the Bible also has other rules, or rules can be created based on it.

A rule-keeping morality is characterised by statements about whether particular conduct is within the rules, and also with obsessive consideration of the letter and spirit of the law. I grew up in a Seventh-day Adventist household, so the Fourth Commandment, the one about keeping the Sabbath holy, was emphasised. In that place and time it was not appropriate to go swimming on the Sabbath (doing one’s own pleasure), but if you went on a nature walk along the beach it was OK to take off your shoes and paddle in the water… And so on.

For an atheist, Stage 3 is about approval from the rest of society – or from a subgroup. Outlaw bikers might like to think they are the ultimate rebels and need no-one’s approval (sometimes actively seeking the disapproval of mainstream society), yet of course they do seek the approval of others within their own subculture. Everyone likes to be liked, and seen as a ‘good bloke’ or ‘good woman’, and seeking this kind of approval tends to reinforce moral behaviour, with the “what will people think?” level of reasoning. Stage 4 tends to get transferred to other kinds of laws, particularly the laws of the land. This is the level of moral reasoning of the people who get very offended if someone exceeds the speed limit – not at all because of the threat of danger to that person or others, but specifically because the person is breaking the law. The same applies to all other laws: moral behaviour is defined by legal behaviour. The notion that a law can be immoral might be accepted in theory, but the response will usually be ‘but it’s the law!’

Level 3 (Post-Conventional)

5. Social contract orientation

6. Universal ethical principles (Principled conscience)

Maybe some of you can correct me, but I’m not sure Stage 5 is understandable at all from a theistic perspective. A social contract takes the form “I won’t steal from you and you won’t steal from me: and if we both abide by the contract then both of us will be able to keep our stuff safe”. I guess a theist might argue that God’s laws encode the same kinds of principles as a social contract: the Ten Commandments do a decent job of encoding most of the common social contract principles. But that’s not quite the same level of moral reasoning, since the reason for keeping the Ten Commandments is not the social contract, it’s ‘because God said so’. (Which boils down to either Stage 4 law-keeping or Stage 1 punishment avoidance.)

For an atheist, Stage 5 is kind of the default (for someone who has developed in their moral reasoning beyond the earlier stages): we do things and avoid doing things largely on the basis of the Golden Rule (even if we don’t ascribe that to Jesus) – “would I want it to be done to me?” It resides in empathy and an ability to imagine consequences: at Stage 5 a person avoids drinking and driving, for example, not because it’s illegal, but because they can imagine what it would feel like to kill someone in an accident that was their fault.

Stage 6 is probably in many ways the defining point of difference. Theists say “how can moral principles be universal without a divine guarantee?” Any scheme that is human is on a human scale – and, of course, one of the hidden assumptions in this discussion is that Christian doctrine says all humans are Fallen, sinful, corrupt. Anything that arises wholly from human sources, therefore, is flawed by definition. Without God to offer a ‘God’s eye view’ of morality from a position above and beyond the human, all sets of moral principles are ‘merely’ social constructions – and social constructions founded in sinful human self-love and selfishness. Without a divine guarantee, they claim, moral principles are meaningless – fleeting and foundationless.

Atheists, on the other hand, believe that humanity is all we have available when it comes to developing moral principles. Humanists (there’s a large overlap) tend to believe that humans are inherently good, inherently likely to seek to do right and to enhance others’ lives and experiences. Humanists would see humans as almost inevitably generating moral codes based on social contracts and avoidance of harm, and then generalising those beyond the local context and the ‘in-group’. And for atheists, all we’ve got is all we’ve got. If humanity does not create a morality, then there will be no morality. Since there clearly exist moral codes in the world, they must have arisen through human processes. Our moral reasoning becomes a matter of applying these principles, and seeking to sieve out our own self-interest from our considerations so as to do the moral thing. Someone at Stage 4 will really struggle with the ‘steal medicine to save dying person’ dilemma, since it involves law-breaking, but someone at Stage 6 will recognise that values, while universal, are also relative, and saving a life outweighs protecting private property. And so on.

My goal in this whole post is not to support one or the other perspective, it’s to try to help people from each perspective see how it looks from the ‘other side’. A big problem in the debates I’ve been reading is blanket statements about what theists and atheists ‘can’t possibly do’ within their own moral reasoning, or about ‘in the absence of God there can be no universal moral principles’ and so on.

I guess my point is really that Kohlberg’s useful scheme – and the very real and easily observed categories of moral reasoning that it describes – doesn’t actually distinguish well between theistic and atheistic moral reasoning. Each level and stage (with the possible exception of 5) can be understood from within either perspective. Irrespective of whether we think people with a different perspective from us do tend to use all available levels of moral reasoning, it seems fairly clear that they can – that the opportunity exists. That neither theism nor atheism rules out large swathes of the ability to think and act in moral ways.

[Woody]

Quote:

Better, then, to evaluate the ideas on their own merits, rather than to debate their source(s).

[Woody]

Morality: In the eye of the beholder.

[Twilight II]

'Supply your source' seems to me to be part of the problem - the appeal to authority. The source of my (limited, partial, developing) understanding of morality is my own thinking about the issues, informed by the Bible, a huge range of authors and ideas, experience, others' experiences understood through conversations, movies, music, over a decade of forum discussions, blog posts... there is no single source, but a multitude of sources.

Better, then, to evaluate the ideas on their own merits, rather than to debate their source(s).

How do you know what you know?

To use your own reason as a basis for rationality is circular.

The problem with this circular argument is that you are not all knowing, all present, all powerful and eternal.

So you cannot use your own reason as a basis to determine reason.

This is vicious circular argument and therefore self refuting.

[Twilight II]

I also think it is a good idea to bring this here, the other subject can get too emotionally charged for people to understand the points being made.

[Twilight II]

Morality: In the eye of the beholder.

Do you think that a divine absolute moral decree, that is an expression of the Creator is to be received subjectively?

Does the imperative not to murder, allow for an interpretation that permits murder?

[Bravus]

How do you know that you know?

To use your own reason as a basis for rationality is circular.

The problem with this circular argument is that you are not all knowing, all present, all powerful and eternal.

So you cannot use your own reason as a basis to determine reason.

This is vicious circular argument and therefore self refuting.

Not really, because I do not make the claim to be 'all knowing, all present, all powerful and eternal'. I explicitly made the point that my knowledge is partial, provisional, developing. Certainly if I made the claims you seem to be assuming I'm making, then the statement would be self-refuting. But I'm not.

[Twilight II]

Irrespective of whether we think people with a different perspective from us do tend to use all available levels of moral reasoning, it seems fairly clear that they can – that the opportunity exists. That neither theism nor atheism rules out large swathes of the ability to think and act in moral ways.

Just to comment on your conclusion in your blog post.

I do not think you have understood the issue.

No one is arguing that atheists for instance do not act morally.

What is being shown is that they cannot account for the absolute standards of morality that the universe operates on and requires...

[Bravus]

One useful thing to think about - the range of possibilities:

1. There exists no absolute, objective morality - all is purely personal and subjective

2. There exists no absolute, objective morality - but we can together develop intersubjective moral reasoning frameworks that we use to live moral lives

3. There exists an absolute, objective morality - but we do not have direct access to it, since our perception is fallible, so we can develop only subjective understandings of objective morality

4. There exists an absolute, objective morality - and we have direct, unmediated access to it

Those who support the idea of objective morality tend to speak only of 1 and 4, and to neglect the possibility of 2 and the (in my view) inevitability of 3.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

How do you know that you know?

To use your own reason as a basis for rationality is circular.

The problem with this circular argument is that you are not all knowing, all present, all powerful and eternal.

So you cannot use your own reason as a basis to determine reason.

This is vicious circular argument and therefore self refuting.

Not really, because I do not make the claim to be 'all knowing, all present, all powerful and eternal'. I explicitly made the point that my knowledge is partial, provisional, developing. Certainly if I made the claims you seem to be assuming I'm making, then the statement would be self-refuting. But I'm not.

You haven't understood my response.

You are making a knowledge claim, without an absolute standard upon which to base that knowledge claim.

Think about this:

How do you know that you know anything?

[Twilight II]

One useful thing to think about - the range of possibilities:

1. There exists no absolute, objective morality - all is purely personal and subjective

2. There exists no absolute, objective morality - but we can together develop intersubjective moral reasoning frameworks that we use to live moral lives

3. There exists an absolute, objective morality - but we do not have direct access to it, since our perception is fallible, so we can develop only subjective understandings of objective morality

4. There exists an absolute, objective morality - and we have direct, unmediated access to it

Those who support the idea of objective morality tend to speak only of 1 and 4, and to neglect the possibility of 2 and the (in my view) inevitability of 3.

1. Self refuting - logically, you cannot make a knowledge claim that there is no basis for knowledge.

2. Self refuting - logically, you have to have an absolute standard to appeal to, a pre-supposition.

3. Self refuting - an absolute moral source which by nature would be intelligent, would have to reveal that absolute moral standard for us, if we are to operate with it. As that source would have to be eternal, all knowing, all present and all powerful, it would behove the source to reveal that morality to us, out of the simple principle that good by its nature has to offer itself and communicate itself.

4. Assumptive - that we need un-mediated assistance.

Alternative:

5. There is an absolute moral standard, which the absolute source of the universe has revealed to us, for our absolute good, through His revelation, and because of His nature and will that absolute moral standard has been revealed to us.

[Bravus]

This foundationalism is the problem, not the solution. *My* claim is that all knowledge claims are foundationless, or at least that their foundations are temporal, partial, contingent. Including yours.

The notion that knowledge claims require an *ultimate* foundation in order to exist at all is self-refuting. Quantum phenomena are only one of the many domains in which absolute knowledge claims are *in principle impossible* to make, in very precisely specified ways. If all truth claims had to be supported in ultimate foundations, all knowledge claims would be impossible.

[Bravus]

You keep *asserting* a position, rather than presenting arguments for it.

[Woody]

Quote:

and because of His nature that absolute moral standard can be revealed to us.

Yes it can. And it will take all of eternity in heaven to understand it. Personally - I'm not there yet.

[Twilight II]

This foundationalism is the problem, not the solution. *My* claim is that all knowledge claims are foundationless, or at least that their foundations are temporal, partial, contingent. Including yours.

[Twilight II]

You keep *asserting* a position, rather than presenting arguments for it.

I am presenting a pre-supposition that can be logically tested.

I am not presenting a vicious circular argument that cannot be tested.

They are not the same thing...

All arguments assume an authority at some point, an authority that is by nature self attesting.

Self attesting claims are only a problem when they cannot be tested.

[Twilight II]

Let me give you an example of an argument that is self attesting and yet testable:

In the beginning God...

You see, no matter what way we slice and dice it, there has to be an eternal source for all aspects of the universe.

Not only an eternal source, but an intelligent source and an all powerful all knowing source.

The very preconditions of intelligibility reveal this simple fact.

Without that source, nothing makes sense, and nothing can be accounted for.

[Twilight II]

Quote:

and because of His nature that absolute moral standard can be revealed to us.

Yes it can. And it will take all of eternity in heaven to understand it. Personally - I'm not there yet.

Well I am glad you can see there is an absolute moral standard in the universe...

But if you cannot comprehend it, how do you know it is there?

[Bravus]

(I haven't lost interest in the discussion, it's just time for me to do the work I'm getting paid for! More later...)

[Twilight II]

(I haven't lost interest in the discussion, it's just time for me to do the work I'm getting paid for! More later...)

No problem, catch up soon.

[M. T. Cross]

How do you know what you know?

Often as not, life experience teaches you what you need to know.

When I was younger I thought nothing of being faithful to a girl. It was my life, I could do what I want if I wanted to. So eventually I did. I saw first hand the damage and destruction I caused by my act. So it became part of my moral compass to not cheat. It damaged her ability to grow and experience life.

I believe there is basically one universal moral. Do not mess with others ability to grow and experience. From that you can build sub morals, but they are totally subjective indeed. But as far as I can tell all morals stem from that one simple law.

[olger]

Objective.

Moral Truth is not an auto-developed construct.

It is the product of an external absolute (God).