A less selfish Pascal's wager

[Tank]

I suspected that you were making a general point that notself had got the gist of your argument correct. However your response allowed me to create a question that would allow you to clarify your position, and you did, very effectively, thank you. I'm pretty sure I understand what you are getting at now, at least I hope so.

So, for arguments sake, God (the singular Christian God defined in detail by yourself earlier) exists and instils a moral sense in His creations, us. A person's belief in that singular God, or not, makes no difference to that person's ability to make an objective moral judgement with that moral sense that is instilled in all of us by God.

It is only if God does not exist that morality becomes subjective as there is no 'God given' framework upon which to base an objective moral judgement.

Is that close to what you are getting at?

[Jac3510]

I suspected that you were making a general point that notself had got the gist of your argument correct. However your response allowed me to create a question that would allow you to clarify your position, and you did, very effectively, thank you. I'm pretty sure I understand what you are getting at now, at least I hope so.

So, for arguments sake, God (the singular Christian God defined in detail by yourself earlier) exists and instils a moral sense in His creations, us. A person's belief in that singular God, or not, makes no difference to that person's ability to make an objective moral judgement with that moral sense that is instilled in all of us by God.

It is only if God does not exist that morality becomes subjective as there is no 'God given' framework upon which to base an objective moral judgement.

Is that close to what you are getting at?

Close enough for me, yes sir. I might quibble with the term "moral sense," but that gets into details of how we know morality, not in what sense it is or is not objective. I only say that because you could argue that evolution has given us a "moral sense," but just so long as we are not basing objective moral judgment on the sense, but are merely using the sense (whatever its origin) to help us discover what is right and wrong in any particular case, what you've said perfectly well represents my position.

[notself]

You believe that morality comes from a divine being.  Most atheists believe morality comes from empathy and altruism which appears even in human infants and other primates and therefore may be part of the natural wiring of the brain.  This natural predisposition is encouraged and shaped by culture.  

Br J Psychol. 2009 Aug;100(Pt 3):473-9; discussion 487-90.

Abstract
Human infants as young as 14 to 18 months of age help others attain their goals, for example, by helping them to fetch out-of-reach objects or opening cabinets for them. They do this irrespective of any reward from adults (indeed external rewards undermine the tendency), and very likely with no concern for such things as reciprocation and reputation, which serve to maintain altruism in older children and adults. Humans' nearest primate relatives, chimpanzees, also help others instrumentally without concrete rewards. These results suggest that human infants are naturally altruistic... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19063815

[Jac3510]

No, notself, I don't believe that "morality comes from a divine being." I believe its objective moral foundations are rooted in a divine being, and that, necessarily so. It doesn't matter where those morals come from. It doesn't matter if we get them from evolution, from culture, if God ingrained them us and they are known intuitively -- the origin of morals has absolutely no bearing on my argument.

Atheists typically view morality as a glorified herd instinct--altruism, as you point out. What I'm having trouble getting you to see is that just because an altruistic species is more likely to survive, that doesn't necessarily make an altruistic action morally right or morally wrong in and of itself. The only ways I know of to say that things are morally right or wrong in and of themselves is to root them in the command of God (which I don't) or to root them in the intended nature of human relationships (which I do and have argued in some detail is ultimately rooted in the nature of God; put differently, the intended human relationship is an expression of God's nature just as much as the laws of physics are). The distinction is subtle, but important. In any case, concerning the evolutionary model, I could just as well say that since my moral beliefs are nothing more than a holdover from human evolution that I recognize there is nothing morally binding about them and therefore choose to act in accordance with my own values, whatever they may be. That is, on the evolutionary model, I can choose my own value system on which to base morality. There is no objective reason that it has to be what is good for the human species, which is to say that morality is, ontologically speaking, subjective. Thus, on atheism, the evolutionary model of morality may explain why we act like we do (i.e., being "good" to one another), but it offers no objective basis on which to say those actions really are intrinsically good or evil.

I really want you to see what I'm saying. I don't want to keep repeating myself. I'm at a loss as to how to try to make my position any clearer. Any ideas?

[Tank]

I think your position is quite clear. However you are unique in my experience of theists on forums in your ability to express your views effectively and your willingness to do so. Thus it's a pleasant, in fact brilliant, experience to have a discussion of this nature with somebody where I might get to understand what they actually believe. Unlike another member here you're not only showing me the 'car' but you've opened the bonnet and let me test drive it. I may not buy it in due course but at least I'll understand, and hopefully be able to articulate, why I haven't bought it.

You're getting examined in detail simply because you haven't run away yet, and I sincerely hope you don't  

[notself]

No, notself, I don't believe that "morality comes from a divine being." I believe its objective moral foundations are rooted in a divine being, and that, necessarily so. It doesn't matter where those morals come from. It doesn't matter if we get them from evolution, from culture, if God ingrained them us and they are known intuitively -- the origin of morals has absolutely no bearing on my argument.
I find it difficult to understand how you can state that moral foundations are rooted in a divine being while at the same time saying that morals don't come from a divine being.  You are too subtle for me.

Atheists typically view morality as a glorified herd instinct--altruism, as you point out.  Altruism is not herd instinct.  There is no evidence of altruistic behaviour in herd animals. Altruism is a characteristic of higher primates.

What I'm having trouble getting you to see is that just because an altruistic species is more likely to survive, that doesn't necessarily make an altruistic action morally right or morally wrong in and of itself.  Without altruism all the moral codes in the world will fail to be effective.  Altruism is the root of morals.  All that I see you doing is adding a layer "God" to something that does not need it.  You seem to be taking a round about way to justify the need for a god by saying that we need objective morals when in my opinion all we need is altruism that is further nurtured and developed by culture.  The variations in cultural norms supports that morals are subjective although they are rooted in altruism.

I'll continue in another post.

[notself]

The distinction is subtle, but important. The distinction is important if one needs to believe in "God".  It is this belief in the divine being that makes one want morals to be objective rather than subjective. The Christian bible is an example of subjective morals.  At one time parents could stone their daughters for not conforming to cultural mores.  Now some Christians merely beat their daughters and throw them out of the house.  Most Christians just live with the disappointment. This is certainly a change in moral behavior.  It changed because society changes.  In those societies that have not changed such behavior is still the moral norm.  Saudi Arabia comes to mind.

In any case, concerning the evolutionary model, I could just as well say that since my moral beliefs are nothing more than a holdover from human evolution that I recognize there is nothing morally binding about them and therefore choose to act in accordance with my own values, whatever they may be. Altruism is not a holdover but rather a core part of the normal human response.  It is no more a holdover than opposable thumbs.

That is, on the evolutionary model, I can choose my own value system on which to base morality. If your value system did not substantially conform to that of society, you would be arrested.

There is no objective reason that it has to be what is good for the human species, which is to say that morality is, ontologically speaking, subjective. Thus, on atheism, the evolutionary model of morality may explain why we act like we do (i.e., being "good" to one another), but it offers no objective basis on which to say those actions really are intrinsically good or evil.I agree, there is no objective basis for morality.  You need to have an objective basis for morality, because without one there is no need for the divine. You believe in the divine so you argue the necessity for objective morals.

I really want you to see what I'm saying. I don't want to keep repeating myself. I'm at a loss as to how to try to make my position any clearer. Any ideas? Your position is clear.  Now that I understand it,I don't agree with it.  I do enjoy your thoughts and the way you express them..

[Thumpalumpacus]

But then a much more basic question comes up: since we know that our moral system is nothing more than a glorified herd instinct, why should we continue to uphold it? What is the objective reason for doing so?

The objective reason for upholding morality is obvious: it makes for a society in which the possibility of personal happiness is avaiable to the largest possible number of members.

There isn't one as it turns out. You may want to continue to do what is good for the human species, but that's just your own personal value, and personal values can't be the ground for objective reality.

Category shift in the emphasized passage.  No one is arguing that reality itself can be grounded in objective morals.

I don't need an objective morality to treat people decently, and I pity anyone who does.

[Recusant]

I'd like to say that though I neglected to welcome you in your Introduction thread, I'm glad that you've joined HAF, Jac3510.  I've enjoyed reading your posts very much, and appreciate the obvious effort that you've put into them. I'm a mere dabbler in philosophy, and sometimes get the terms confused, or have an insufficient grasp of their definitions, so please bear with me, and don't hesitate to correct improper usage when you see it.

I don't think that there is such a thing as an unequivocally objective morality.  I sincerely doubt that you, or Dr. Craig, or any other of the admirable Christian philosophers and theologians can prove conclusively that there is.  I do think that there is what I might call a provisionally objective morality.  You've  probably already imagined where I'm going with this.  

I agree with the idea, already mentioned by others, that we are a social species, and have evolved what you refer to as a "glorified herd instinct."  This is not an objective morality, but the moral tendencies (or instinct) we've inherited serve as a basis for morality that's more or less universal to the human species. Morality varies quite a bit from culture to culture, but there are a few moral precepts that in various guises are to be found in all of them. So while I don't think that objective morality exists in the sense of a Platonic ideal, I do think that there are common tendencies which are pretty much hard-wired into the human species.  We don't get to choose whether those tendencies are there, though people and societies can choose whether to ignore them or not.  This "proto-morality" does not exist independent of the human mind, but I don't think that the healthy human mind exists without it, either. It's "objective" in the sense that humanity doesn't get to choose whether it exists or not.  But its existence in dependent upon the existence of humanity, so it's not unequivocally objective.

 I don't think anything I've written here contradicts what you've written, because I agree that an unequivocally objective morality can only emanate from the supernatural realm, whether one wants to call its source "God" or "reservoir," or "balance in the universe."  But I felt that I should make an attempt to respond to at least a bit of your contributions so far, rather than just saying, "Cool stuff here, Jac3510, thanks for sharing it with us!"  I wouldn't be offended if you did no more than acknowledge that last sentence, because I honestly don't think that I've moved the conversation forward at all. I wrote this offline, and looking at some recent responses, maybe I should just go back to thanking you, but I'll go ahead and burden the bandwidth anyway.

[EDIT] Removed faulty analogy.

[Jac3510]

[KebertX]

Ok, that's fine. I thought it was, I just wanted to be sure!

Hope I didn't disappoint!

[Jac3510]

Hey Kerbert,

Rather than line-by-line your reply and create a motherload of a tl;dr, let me boil everything down into two basic points. Please, if in doing so, I miss anything at all you feel needs commenting on (even if it turns out to be your whole reply!) just let me know and I will immediately comment on that specifically. Fair enough?

1. It seems to me that your central value is social happiness, which stands in distinction to ethical egoism (in which happiness of the individual is the basic value pursued). Now, first, let me comment positively that this view is at least "objective" in a weak sense of the word, although not in the sense I am pressing. By that, I mean we can have a rational argument about what will bring about the most happiness for any given course of action and then label that action as the one that "ought" to be done. Further, I don't have a particularly pragmatic problem with the approach as it probably provides a fairly good test to help us discover the good (although I'm here presuming morality is objective as I mean it).

With that said, I have two objections.

First, there seems to be no objective reason to adopt it. You state that egoism is a pre-conventional morality, but that doesn't make it wrong. People beliefs, whether past, present, or future have no bearing on a statement's truth-value. You are assuming here that happiness (rather than survival as I originally commented on) is the proper value, and more specifically, the happiness of others. Now, I want to say here, "That may be true, but . . ." and yet I can't. I can't because the statement "that may be true" implies that the statement "The happiness of others ought to be sought" is an objective statement with a truth value in and of itself. But who says that it is? On what basis? There is no objective reason for accepting even your position. It is still just as subjective as anything else, which means morality is still reduced to nothing more than personal opinion.

Second, I can't agree with your conflation of inevitability and objectivity. To say,"People ought to behave such and such a way because they were bound to learn to act that way" doesn't address the fundamental issue, which is why should I behave as people are bound to behave? What objective reason can be provided to explain why I ought to adopt your value system? You can't appeal to your personal value to answer that, because it just begs the question.

2. You ask how it is that morality is objective with God. The question is fair. I have said repeatedly, and you have acknowledged, that I am not a deontologist. We don't root morality in God's command (although if we did, the worst we could say is that morality is objective for us, being His creations, even if it is subjective for Him. He is, after all, God!). It is rooted in the intention of God concerning the created order.

Let me give you an example.

Did you ever see The Little Mermaid? Do you remember the scene where Ariel uses the fork as a hair brush? She saw this strange thing and just assumed that it was to be used on her hair. Of course, she was wrong. That's not what a fork is for at all. It wasn't designed to brush hair. The fact that it can do serve that purpose is neither here nor their. Its purpose is for eating. Ariel was wrong, sincerely and ignorantly so, about its purpose. But she could only be wrong if it had an actual purpose, and it could only have a purpose if it was designed by an intelligent designer.

God created the universe to work according to certain laws. We study them every day in the laboratory. Morality is precisely the same way, which is why it used to be called "the moral law." Mankind is intended to be kind to one another. That intention provides the basis for an objective ought. Let me, however, make a STRONG word of caution. I am NOT saying that the objective basis provides an epistemic test for what we ought to do in any given test. Part of the problem with modern ethics is that they confuse the question "How do I know right from wrong" with the question "What is right and wrong." I am simply offering why it is that morals can be objective if God exists. His intentions, in any case, are rooted in His nature, not His commands (which is something philosophers are very well aware of when discussion practical reason).

So here's the practical take away:

Someone asks you, "Why should I be kind," you answer, "Because it increases happiness." They respond, "Why should I care about increasing happiness," you can only respond, in whatever words you choose, "Because you should!"

Someone asks me, "Why should I be kind," I answer, "Because God created social relationships to be couched in kindness." They respond, "Why would God create the world in such a way," and I respond, "Because it is consistent with His nature."

Notice that in your answer, we ought to do something relative to a value system, which makes it subjective, because everyone has the right to their own value system. In my answer, we ought to to something relative to the way reality is structured, which makes it objective, because people do not have the right to their own realities.

Thanks for reply, and no, you certainly did not disappoint. If you think it is refreshing to talk to a theist who rejects deontology, I find it just as refreshing to talk to a non-theist who is willing to engage in serious dialogue on this rather than just accuse me of Bible thumping. :p

[humblesmurph]

Jac3510, I think you've done a fine job of proving that objective morality can't be grounded in something evolutionary or social.

However,  you brought up the idea of the morality machine on a far off planet. I don't believe you addressed KebertX's point regarding this (I'm wrong alot though).  If this machine exists, then we would have objective morality without God.  You seem to have also proven that objective morality doesn't require God.

[Asmodean]

You seem to have also proven that objective morality doesn't require God.

I am of the same opinion. One can fantasize several ways in which an objective morality could be shoved down our collective throats, most of which would not require godly traits - only advanced technology. Of course, such scenarios would be highly speculative, but no more speculative than a proposition of god, as understood in the abrahamic religions.

[Jac3510]

Jac3510, I think you've done a fine job of proving that objective morality can't be grounded in something evolutionary or social.

However,  you brought up the idea of the morality machine on a far off planet. I don't believe you addressed KebertX's point regarding this (I'm wrong alot though).  If this machine exists, then we would have objective morality without God.  You seem to have also proven that objective morality doesn't require God.

In the scenario I suggested, the machine would have to be somehow related to the purpose of man. Just spitting out rules wouldn't mean anything unless those rules were somehow connected to man's purpose.

Now, I suppose there IS a way that you can have objective morality without God in this regard . . . if you argue that humanity was created by an alien race, then you can argue that we were designed for a specific purpose (theoretically) and therefore we ought to act in a certain way if we are to fulfill our intended purpose. The only problem with that is you come dangerously close to falling into Euthyphro's Dilemma again. I don't think most people appreciate that the original dilemma deeply rests on the polytheism of the Greek world.

Anyway, with that said, I don't think there is anybody, especially not here, who thinks that we were designed for a purpose by an alien race that has imposed a moral structure on our society. If someone does want to argue that, I suppose I can concede that is a rational possibility. Shy of that, we are still left with a completely subjective moral system if God doesn't exist.