Is Absolute Morality Possible?

[Ephilei]

In a theistic framework, ethics have God has a grounding assumption. Eg, "Do X because God values X" or "God is the essence of value, and life comes from God, therefore life has value." Without God, the ethic falls apart. From my confessed limited experience with non-theistic ethics, it seems the only way to have an ethic is to replace God with the speaking individual, creating an ethic relative to the individual. "Do X because X because I value X." Is there another possibility? Is there another possible source to ethics besides God and self? Or, can ethics be possible without a source? Self-sustaining without being circular reasoning?

[Will]

It you mean objectively absolute moral perfection, then no. There really aren't objective morals to speak of, we all interpret them through our own particular sets of biases and perceptions. That's not to say morality isn't real, as a concept it's very real, it's just not a specific group of rules set in stone (no pun intended).

[Ephilei]

Is that strictly your opinion or do atheists generally agree?

[AlP]

The theistic view on morality tends to be either moral absolutism or moral universalism. The first is the view that there is one absolute source of values that provides a basis to judge things as right or wrong, regardless of context. The second is like the first except one but allows context to be taken into account. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are moral relativism and moral nihilism. Moral relativism is the view that there is no absolute source of values and value judgments are subjective and depend on context. An extreme form of moral relativism holds that all values are equally valid. Moral nihilism is the view that there simply are no values and that all moral statements are meaningless.

My view is the less extreme form of moral relativism: that there is no absolute source of values and that value judgments depend on context. I also believe they are subjective but with the qualification that one can argue that one set of values is better or worse than another, paradoxically by making another value judgement. A philosophically minded person might argue that there is an infinite regress here. I get around that by arguing that there are human values (not absolute or universal values) that relate to our physiology and psychology, like the value of food when we are hungry and the way our brains let us understand how others are feeling and actually feel what they are feeling. One can argue that one set of values is better than another by using these human values as premises.

[LoneMateria]

Ephilei your post reminds me of Euthyphro's dilemma.  Have you heard of it?  Euthyphro was a character from Plato.  In his dialog with Socrates, Socrates asks him, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

This essentially translates to: Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?  Either way it presents a problem to the argument morals come from God.  If what is moral is commanded by God because it is moral, then God is not the creator/author of morality and therefore is bound to it just like we are.  If its moral because its commanded by God then morality is arbitrary and at God's command he can change it to make rape, murder, and stealing all good while charity bad.  Also if this were the case you can't call God good at best you can call him consistent (which I would object to).

[Ephilei]

Moral relativism is the view that there is no absolute source of values and value judgments are subjective and depend on context. An extreme form of moral relativism holds that all values are equally valid. Moral nihilism is the view that there simply are no values and that all moral statements are meaningless.

Nilihism and the extreme relative make sense. But if an unextreme relativism has no source of values, then mustn't any relative value must equally valid?

 

My view is the less extreme form of moral relativism: that there is no absolute source of values and that value judgments depend on context. I also believe they are subjective but with the qualification that one can argue that one set of values is better or worse than another, paradoxically by making another value judgement. A philosophically minded person might argue that there is an infinite regress here. I get around that by arguing that there are human values (not absolute or universal values) that relate to our physiology and psychology, like the value of food when we are hungry and the way our brains let us understand how others are feeling and actually feel what they are feeling. One can argue that one set of values is better than another by using these human values as premises.

Aren't physiology and psychology values then? Then the human body (opposed to individuals as I originally raised) is the source of (some of?) your ethics. "If I am hungry, food has value." But on what basis does you think your body dictates value? Certainly food is valuable IF you want to live, but what makes living valuable? Can't we trace the source of your values again to yourself who asserts that living is valuable?

I did forget a category as a source of ethics besides God and self: Others (family, community, priest, tradition, nation, etc).

[Renegnicat]

I would have thought you would have figured it out by know, ephilei:

Do what you want, and be prepared for the consequences of your actions.

Duh.  

[AlP]

Nilihism and the extreme relative make sense. But if an unextreme relativism has no source of values, then mustn't any relative value must equally valid?

Yeah I think that kind of moral relativism is very hard to defend. I don't hold that view. Nihilism is easier to defend but it leaves one with nothing to create.

My view is the less extreme form of moral relativism: that there is no absolute source of values and that value judgments depend on context. I also believe they are subjective but with the qualification that one can argue that one set of values is better or worse than another, paradoxically by making another value judgement. A philosophically minded person might argue that there is an infinite regress here. I get around that by arguing that there are human values (not absolute or universal values) that relate to our physiology and psychology, like the value of food when we are hungry and the way our brains let us understand how others are feeling and actually feel what they are feeling. One can argue that one set of values is better than another by using these human values as premises.

Aren't physiology and psychology values then? Then the human body (opposed to individuals as I originally raised) is the source of (some of?) your ethics. "If I am hungry, food has value." But on what basis does you think your body dictates value? Certainly food is valuable IF you want to live, but what makes living valuable? Can't we trace the source of your values again to yourself who asserts that living is valuable?

I did forget a category as a source of ethics besides God and self: Others (family, community, priest, tradition, nation, etc).

Physiology and psychology are not themselves values. But we can look at the wiring. We can see that physiologically and psychologically we are wired to value certain things. I believe this is due to evolution.

I believe that the concept of "self" is an illusion of the mind. There's a voice in my head. So what? It isn't making the decisions. Why should I elect it CEO?

[Ephilei]

Yeah I think that kind of moral relativism is very hard to defend.

Hard or impossible? It seems the latter?

Physiology and psychology are not themselves values.

Oh, I agree for myself. I was speaking from your point of reference. You said "there are human values (not absolute or universal values) that relate to our physiology and psychology." But maybe I was wrong in speaking for you. So you don't think, say, food is a value even tho it stems from our physiology? If not, what are the "human values" you refer to?

[Ephilei]

I would have thought you would have figured it out by know, ephilei:

Do what you want, and be prepared for the consequences of your actions.

I had figured that out before I started the thread. But because I value truth-seeking and not just my POV, I wanted the input of atheists because I am not. I've seen all too often the danger of giving the viewpoint of a person you disagree with. I hear theists who say "atheists who have no morals" without bothering to ask atheists whether that's true or not. While I don't think atheists have no morals, I did think atheism has no morals. But I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth. I want to hear it from the people themselves and I'm hearing, without debate, is that atheistic morality is nihilistic.

[AlP]

Yeah I think that kind of moral relativism is very hard to defend.

Hard or impossible? It seems the latter?

Maybe. I've never tried it =).

Physiology and psychology are not themselves values.

Oh, I agree for myself. I was speaking from your point of reference. You said "there are human values (not absolute or universal values) that relate to our physiology and psychology." But maybe I was wrong in speaking for you. So you don't think, say, food is a value even tho it stems from our physiology? If not, what are the "human values" you refer to?

I'm obviously not being clear. I do think that food is valuable to humans.

[Will]

It's quite simple. While innately there are moral tendencies that are common, among creatures such as us, capable of higher reasoning, moral relativism is null theory; it's the way we are without any other stimuli. In other words, moral relativism doesn't need to be defended anymore than atheism does, logically speaking.

[Renegnicat]

Nihilistic, eh? I don't think that gives any justice to the picture at all. Nihilism implies that there is no reason to do anything, but that's not necessarily the case.

It's more of an existentialist morality, where, the meaning we create for ourselves is the reason for acting. It's just not universal to every human. That doesn't mean it's nihilistic, unless a person's meaning is inherently nihilistic. It means that morality a personal thing that each person own in their own way.

To put it in other terms, it's similiar to a personal relationship with god. Each person, as far as I can tell, who has a personal relationship with god, has it on their own terms, and in their own special way. That doesn't mean that there's no way to have a personal relationship with god. It just means that it is not a one size fits all thing. Thus, while morality certainly could be nihilistic for an individual, you can't blanket predict that all atheists are nihilistic.

It's a personal thing.  

[Kylyssa]

But what you are forgetting is that even Christian morals are not absolute.  You may say that God made a universal morality and it's written down in the Bible but you will find, that in practice, no two Christian groups actually agree on all of those morals.  While Christians follow an almost infinite variety of differing moral codes the one thing they all agree on is that those morals come from God - even though they've come up with all of these varying moral codes.  They've chosen a morality which fits their worldview.  If God's morality were absolute then Christians would share the same morals and suit their behavior to meet their morals rather than doing as they do - suiting their morals to agree with their actions.

Since Christians (and other religious folks) choose what morals they hold they choose moral values that closely follow the norms of society or the norms of the subset of society that they inhabit.  That's why there are fundamentalist Christians who take every word of the Bible literally and long for the good old days of killing adulteresses in the public square and there are Christians conducting same-sex marriages in their churches.  Some Christians are vegetarian pacifists because the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" and there are Christians who latch onto the bit in the Bible about not mixing things of different types and create a white supremacy group.  There's everything from the Phelps Phreaks (Westboro Baptist Church aka the "God hates fags" church) to Unitarian Universalists.  

So why pretend that there are absolute and universal morals if people of a single religion can't even agree on what they are?

[Kylyssa]

Our morality comes from our empathy and our nature as social animals.  There's a great degree of variation, worldwide, but overall people tend to hold the values of the society they live in.  Now that we can all virtually get together and compare notes, societies are borrowing from each other and this is probably a good thing.  Some countries have a set of moral norms in which it is OK to kill someone for a victimless crime like premarital sex.  Some countries have a moral norm in which it is OK to allow people to die which they have the ability to help.  Some countries have a set of moral norms which neither allow for killing nor letting those who can be saved die.  I'd like to think that as people become exposed to more humane moral codes, they will tend to adopt them.

It seems that over time, the cream floats to the top and slowly, slowly people make more judgments based on rationality and empathy and discard the bloodthirsty religious moral codes.  Even though the morality they practice is more humane than the morality of their religion, they will insist that their morals come from it.  

The good thing about not having religious morals to work around, atheists can start choosing morals right away based on societal norms, logic and empathy.  We don't have to live with the dichotomy of a religion that says one thing and a society that says another.  We don't have to try to make contradictory things like "women are property" and "women aren't property" make sense as some religious people do.  

We make a moral contract with other members of our society.