There are two senses in which something can be considered good. Something can be good in a pragmatic sense: that which is the most effective means for obtaining some desired outcome. For example, if we desire to eat an ice cream cone without getting ice cream on our clothes, it is “good” to start eating from the top of the cone rather than the bottom. This kind of goodness is judged by something’s utility. It is considered good because it works well, and the human subject values the fact that it works well. We might call this kind of goodness “pragmatic goodness.”
Something can also be good in the sense that it has intrinsic moral virtue/character. For example, it is “good” to try to save someone who is drowning. This kind of goodness is judged by the intrinsic moral character of the act itself, rather than its utility. Indeed, risking one’s life to save a stranger has little utility for the rescuer, but great moral virtue nonetheless. This sort of goodness is not determined by what we desire or the value we attach to the outcome, but is rooted in the moral character of the act itself, wholly independent of what any human may think about it.[1] We might call this kind of goodness “moral goodness.” This is the kind of goodness moral philosophers have in mind when they talk about objective morality.
While many atheists admit that in the absence of God there is no foundation for objective moral values, some atheists such as Michael Shermer and Sam Harris, claim to believe in the existence of objective moral values without the existence of God. Where do objective moral values come from, then? Evolution, they say. On this view, the struggle for survival favors certain behaviors over others. Those behaviors that aid in our survival and evolution are what we call “good.” Those that are detrimental to our survival and evolution are what we call “evil.” Since all humans have to exhibit these behaviors to survive and thrive in the world (universal), and since their truth is based on the way the world works rather than on personal opinion, they are objective as well.
Does an evolutionary account of morality truly account for the existence of objective morality? No. Two mistakes are being made: confusing pragmatism for morality, and confusing universality for objectivity.
Pragmatism vs. Morality
Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, et al consistently equivocate on the meaning of good, confusing what is pragmatically good for what is morally good. While doing some action X may help one to survive or flourish (i.e. it is pragmatic), that does not necessarily mean that action X is moral. We can imagine many acts that may help a person or species survive, but that are morally evil. For example, raping females could serve to further the survival of one’s own genes or species, but that pragmatic concern does not make rape moral. Cowardice can also aid one’s survival, but cowardice is not a moral virtue. It would be wrong then to assume, then, that pragmatic goodness is identical to moral goodness.
Actions that produce ends we desire (such as survival) may be good in the pragmatic sense, but that says nothing about the moral virtue of the acts themselves. The moral virtue of the acts is a separate question. On an evolutionary account of morality, the outcome is only good because sentient creatures value it, and the behavior that is necessary to obtain the desired outcome is only good in an instrumental sense – because it allows us to get the desired outcome, which we value. The goodness of the behavior and the end for which we engage in the behavior are pragmatic and subjective since the goodness is based on the subject’s estimation and valuation of the behavior and outcome. Even if all sentient creatures value that outcome, and even if doing a particular behavior will always result in that desired outcome, there is nothing intrinsic to either that bears the quality of moral virtue. Goodness is imposed on them by sentient minds, and thus they are only subjectively and pragmatically good, not objectively and intrinsically good (morally virtuous). Our desire for a particular outcome does not create moral value in that outcome. For the outcome to be morally virtuous in an objective sense, it must have intrinsic moral value – a value derived from a source independent of human minds. Evolution may determine which behaviors are useful for survival, but evolution is silent on the moral virtue of those behaviors, and thus an evolutionary theory of morality cannot account for objective morality.
Universality vs. Objectivity
Those who attempt to explain objective morality by appealing to evolution also err by mistaking universality for objectivity. While it may be true that certain actions always result in a desired outcome for all who do them, the universality of this cause and effect relationship does not, in itself, make the behavior objectively good because being universal is not the same as being objective. To see why, imagine a world in which everyone thought vanilla ice cream is the best flavor of ice cream. Though this point of view would be universal, it would not be objective because it describes the beliefs of human subjects rather than a quality that inheres within the ice cream itself. An exhaustive examination of the physical constituents of vanilla ice-cream will never turn up a feature describable as “good.” The goodness is only in the mind of the subject who considers the object good.
When goodness is based on what humans think about the object rather than something within the object itself, it is a subjective form of goodness (the judgment that it is good depends on the human subject’s thoughts regarding it). Even if all humans value certain behaviors and outcomes because those behaviors and outcomes aid in our survival and flourishing, the goodness of those behaviors and outcomes is still rooted in what humans value rather than in the behaviors and outcomes themselves. As such, an evolutionary account of morality can only provide us with a subjective view of morality, not an objective view. Morals are relative. Even if morals are relative to everyone in the same way, they are relative nonetheless.
It’s similar to the game of Monopoly. The rules of the game apply to everyone that plays it. In that sense, they are universal. But there is nothing objective about the rules of monopoly. There may be pragmatic reasons for the rules, and the rules may result in the best game possible, but there is nothing objectively true about them. While receiving $200 for passing “Go” is good because it helps you win the game, there is nothing objectively good about passing “Go” and collecting $200.
At best, then, an evolutionary explanation of morality can provide us with a universal version of moral relativism. What it cannot explain is what needs to be explained: the origin of objective morality.
Conclusion
Evolution cannot account for the existence of objective morality. At best, evolution can supply us with universal practicalities that, when followed, result in human flourishing. But human flourishing is not the same as moral goodness. It is a pragmatic good, not a moral good. In the end, evolution is incapable of grounding objective moral values or providing a metaphysical foundation for the good. Only the existence of a personal and omnibenevolent God can explain the existence of objective moral values and our obligation to obey these moral values.
See also:
- No God, no morality
- Why Atheists Can’t Have Objective Morality
- Can Morality be Grounded Outside of God?
- I can be good without God
- Since you would be good even if God didn’t exist, then God is not necessary for morality
- What I’ve Been Reading – Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality
- Morality and the Epistemology-Ontology Distinction
- Yes Moral Facts are Obvious, but the Question is Why?
- Ruse’s Evolutionary Account of Morality
- The Typical Atheist’s Response to the Moral Argument for God’s Existence
___________________________
[1]That’s not to say morally virtuous acts do not have utilitarian value, but only that their only value is not their utility. Their primary value derives from the intrinsic moral nature of the acts themselves.
March 9, 2015 at 4:18 pm
Yea and Nay… Etc…
LikeLike
March 10, 2015 at 12:01 am
Our indebtedness to serve the Creator proceeds from God as Subject who has preferences, interests, and mandates. “Objective morality” is completely incoherent and foreign to the Bible.
LikeLike
March 10, 2015 at 12:06 am
I know you have too much publicly invested in “objective morality” (on your blog etc.) to ever change your mind on this. That being said, pivotal Christian philosopher of language R. M. Hare is a must-read here. Check out “The Language of Morals.”
LikeLike
March 10, 2015 at 7:08 am
Can you show that ‘objective morality’ exists in any real sense?
As far as I can tell its pragmatic and situational, not objective.
LikeLike
March 10, 2015 at 9:35 am
stanrock,
I’m confused by your claim. What do you understand “objective morality” to mean? How is it incoherent and foreign to the Bible?
BTW, while you may not have meant it in a bad way, your second comment is really offensive. Essentially you are saying that I am more concerned about my pride (or being right) than I am in the truth). Anyone who knows me knows that is not true. I have changed my mind on a number of very important issues over the years. What matters to me is the truth.
Jason
LikeLike
March 10, 2015 at 9:38 am
NotAScientist,
To make sure we are using our terms in the same way, let me ask you whether or not you believe that there are any moral facts that exist independent of what humans may believe or think about them. For example, is it a moral fact that torturing a child for fun is immoral? When someone says, “Torturing a child for fun is wrong,” are they describing a quality about the act that is wrong in itself, or are they just decribing their personal feelings?
Jason
LikeLike
March 10, 2015 at 9:56 am
That was a low blow, Stan.
LikeLike
March 10, 2015 at 1:06 pm
It is impossible for moral facts to exist independent of what humans may believe or think about them. When a lion eats the antelope is the moral or immoral act in the lion’s mind even considered? Humans may consider it but do not interfere but If the cat catches your pet bird would you not clobber the cat so the bird can escape?
All morals, indeed all virtues emanate from humans and while it may be a consensus that babies should not be thrown in the air and caught on bayonets it is no more an objective moral than the tsunami that followed the Sumatra Indonesian earthquake of Christmas 2004 killing more people than any other tsunami in recorded history, with 227,898 dead or missing, is moral or immoral
There are Christian men, women and children being slaughtered, seemingly for the fun of it, for religious reasons by those who place no value on the moral values of Christians or anybody else.
Conclusion:
Clinging to the notion that objective morality independent of what humans believe or think is such a nonsense idea it can’t even be argued against with reason because the concept itself has no reason, is baseless, is not formed by any reason and therefore is beyond the scope of reason to refute it.
LikeLike
March 10, 2015 at 1:08 pm
Nothing can explain objective morality because it does not exist.
LikeLike
March 10, 2015 at 1:17 pm
SonofMan,
Animals are not moral creatures and have no moral obligations, so looking to the animals to inform you about right and wrong is pointless. Same thing with natural phenomenon. Just because a mindless tsunami results in the death of people does not mean that human beings have no moral obligation not to murder people.
Neither does the fact that certain people fail to keep the moral law testify against the moral law. That only testifies to their rebellion against it, in the same way that my proclivity for speeding does not negate the speeding laws but shows my proclivity toward disobedience.
The objectivity of morality should be evident to any sane individual. Anyone who can say that torturing a baby for fun has no moral quality to it is morally insane and should be marginalized by society. The existence of moral facts is just as obvious as the existence of mathematical facts.
Jason
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 10, 2015 at 1:24 pm
True the existence of moral facts is obvious, and those without morality may be insane but there are no ojective morals, every moral fact is subjective and dependent on what humans think and believe, that’s the main point. Without humans there are no morals.
LikeLike
March 10, 2015 at 1:33 pm
Perhaps we are using our terms differently, because I see no distinction between “moral facts” (that you say exist) and “objective morals.” If “moral facts” are subjective and dependent on what humans think, then they are not moral facts, but moral opinions. And if morals are just opinions, then there is no reason to even retain the category of “morality.” It’s all just preferences. The preference for black shirts is no different than the preference to beat your wife. Any sane person knows that’s not true, though.
Jason
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 10, 2015 at 2:48 pm
That there are morals is a fact; that there are morals without humans is not and doesn’t make any more sense than the tree that falls in the forest makes no sound if humans do not hear it.
Reciting sport scores is about as objective as one can get away from being subjective; sport scores are facts not opinions but even sport scores result from human activity; if it is a fact that all morals are the opinions of humans then nothing else about morals matter? No moral is an island waiting for humans to discover it, honor or dishonor it.
There is no chicken egg first conundrum here; what comes first the Moral or the Human? The answer is easy.
The Human.
LikeLike
March 10, 2015 at 3:20 pm
If I could interject……..
I believe in the objective morals that Jason speaks of, while at the same time there may be instances where even the objective morals need to be violated in order to achieve a greater good, which is maybe what Leo is getting at.
While I am all for some good solid objective morals, I am careful about painting everything in the universe and every situation as black and white.
Even Jesus broke the law of Moses and could be accused as a law breaker if we take this to the extreme. Atheists could argue that even God broke objective moral laws with some of His actions. I know this is absurd, but many unbelievers, including Leo, think God did not act morally in some of the judgements He meted out. I know that’s another topic……
I think I went beyond the scope of this post, but to me if we are debating about the existence of objective morals, then we must ask why ? If I am obligated to keep these objective morals how does that affect my life ?
Look at the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they would rather die or let their children die because they believe that a blood transfusion is against the law of God. So here is a situation where a group is keeping what they believe is an objective moral command from God. Although they are in error, the belief comes from a book of objective morals, the bible. While we can fault them for their understanding, you can’t fault them for trying to be morally objective. So what is more important ? Obviously understanding what the scriptures mean and reading it in context will save them and us from many moral and theological blunders. Yet we still will make mistakes morally and theologically.
So in the end, while objective morals exist and have their part in shaping our behavior, we cannot live merely by the obligatory keeping of objective morals. Both Atheists and Christians alike would probably agree that many obvious things are morally wrong, such as beating a child, whether they agree this is objectively moral or not. The problem comes for the more subtle issues that many could disagree on. If objective morals come from God, is everything objectively moral or immoral ? Is there any room for subjectivity in the Christian’s belief system ? Has the greyness of morality in the difficult cases chased away Atheists because they have been able to debunk our list of do’s and don’t’s ?
God is a lawgiver, but He is more than just a Lawgiver, He is a Father and a friend. I don’t like using objective morality to prove that God must exist. While ontologically I accept this as true as a believer, I feel like I’m trying to be a rule maker or finger pointer to those that don’t accept the concept of objective morals. What results is a war of words and ideas that eventually end in a stalemate. Why is that ? Because we should know by now, that anything not centered and rooted in the person of Jesus Christ will fail.
A better way to explain what I’m trying to say is that there are 2 trees we can eat of. First there is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. From this tree you will find all the objective morals you need. However, beware, that from this tree you can eat good AND evil. You might think its a good tree but there is evil on that tree also, so watch out ! Even Jesus said, a good tree CANNOT bear bad fruit. The other tree is the tree of Life. On this tree you can’t make mistakes and there is no good and evil to speak of, just Life.
Which tree do you think we should eat from ?
Naz
LikeLike
March 11, 2015 at 12:50 am
And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads. There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign for ever and ever. (Revelation 22:1-5)
Right now we’re pilgrims in a fallen world [Hebrews 11:13]. A world cursed under polar opposites of spirit vs. carnal driven by the god of this age [2 Corinthians 4:4]. We can understand morality as light vs. amorality as darkness [Romans 8:2-4]. Creation is in process of redemption and the day will come when redemption becomes complete, i.e., perfect [Romans 8:20, 21]. In this Eternal State our God [Ephesians 4:6] & the Lamb [John 1:29], who are the source & essence of light & life will be our full provision; shielding us from all detraction. The curse will be totally vanquished [Romans 8:14-17]. Amorality/darkness will no longer obscure or impede our walk. God provides the pure river containing the water of life to nourish the tree of life and fulfill our hope [John 7:38]. The Lamb’s light & protection proves all sufficient to nurture its growth that the tree of life may supply sustenance abundantly to bring us into sublime health [John 10:10, 11, 16-18]. In that day, by the Lord God Almighty’s divine light we will see His countenance shine upon us [Numbers 6:24-26]. His name indeed His new name will be in our minds so we will be consecrated to Him and worthy to serve Him [1 John 3:2]. It shall be the day in which we can truly stand in His glory as He rules His everlasting Kingdom [Romans 8:18, 29, 30].
LikeLike
March 11, 2015 at 8:42 am
Frank Adamick
Creation (Civilization of Mankind) is in process of (evolving) redemption. The Cosmos is constantly evolving. There is no redemption necessary apart from Mankind’s juvenile delinquent treatment of itself (the way man treats his fellow man).
A few quotes of note from Thomas Jefferson: If anyone rejects these quotes out of hand without thought does a disservice to the Father within and to the essence of his own sense of “Being”.
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
What is it men cannot be made to believe!
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
(in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom)
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
In other words, “ALL Humanity”.
I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the “Being” worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks(charlatans, deceivers, trickers, quacks, cheats, frauds, imposters) calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.
You say you are a Calvinist.(reformed born again Christian) I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of (Jesus) this most venerated reformer of human errors.
It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.
LikeLike
March 11, 2015 at 9:57 am
Naz, with respect:
“I know this is absurd, but many unbelievers, including Leo, think God did not act morally in some of the judgements He meted out. I know that’s another topic……”
Leo does not think that God acted morally or immorally because the supernatural God of Books does not exist in my mind and therefore cannot act one way or the other, nor can the God of the Book guide anyone’s mind to the point of unreasonable behavior and then the credits or debits given to the supernatural to duck the responsibility that falls soley on the shoulders of the men perpetuating offensive actions against their fellow man.
On the other hand, Men claiming to be led by God, is reprehensible and immoral on so many levels. And that work of immorality, still functions and is indeed prevalent, in this day and age. Furthermore it is most immoral to heap upon his fellow man, the tyrannical deception of a supernatural God claimed by writers of the Books to the Readers of the Book.
Leo contends that if you read the Book without being mindful of the supernatural God references, bearing in mind it is men not God that behaves in immoral ways; then, you will begin a renewal process of reason in your own mind and the cleansing process the messages of Jesus were designed to foment: pervading the mind like the yeast that permeates every part of the dough and growiing in awesome size like the mustard tree seed after which the birds of man, civilized(redemption to use Frank’s comparative) can rest in comfort in the protection of the soothing shade of the branches that reason and common sense knowledge gives us without measure.
LikeLike
March 11, 2015 at 7:08 pm
The resolution is to simply deny the existence of objective morality. Without “God,” an outer judge, morality is simply subjective to the human reality. It exists as a subject to be molded within the human hand.
So the argument is a misnomer and attacking a strawman. There is no objective morality, there is only practical goodness and what benefits the species. Those who murder aren’t sought by maidens wishing to have their murder spawn. Rapists don’t have as large of a chance to reproduce with a woman they engage in one instance as does a partner who lives with a woman and engages in sex on a regular basis. So no, rape is not practical.
The only way to see pragmatic goodness as not equivalent to morality, is with the assumption of religion. Without, it’s not that difficult to see the practicality of moral systems within their subjective cultural contexts.
LikeLike
March 11, 2015 at 7:10 pm
P.S. Although I disagree with your opinions, I’ve always enjoyed the topics you raise and discussion it fosters. As such – I’d love to see you allow threaded comments on your blog. I never follow up after commenting because replies to what I post do not provide a WP alert. Just a thought – it might help your traffic if you add this feature.
LikeLike
March 11, 2015 at 7:21 pm
nikeyo:
What in the world is a WP alert? And what’s with the traffic you think it could add?
LikeLike
March 11, 2015 at 7:23 pm
WordPress.
I just noticed there was a “notify me of comments” checkable option under the comment window. I tested it out, and it worked. =P Without checking, I’m not notified of comments on WordPress.
‘Twas just a thought.
LikeLike
March 12, 2015 at 4:45 am
nikeyo:
Congratulations, you’re in the loop.
LikeLike
March 13, 2015 at 8:17 am
Getting back to the original subject, I haven’t read Harris yet, and won’t until next week, but is seems to me that Shermer isn’t interested in establishing the evolution of objective morality and in fact rejects such absolute forms of morality as being too either-or. He appears to me to be merely trying to add the tools of the scientific method to those of religion and philosophy in order to better understand of the origin of morality in society in general. I fail to see how dismissing his work proves the validity of objective morality. Discrediting one set of hypotheses doesn’t prove another. Which fallacy of logic is that? False dichotomy? Argument from ignorance? God in the gaps? Or a combination of all three in this case?
I also don’t understand what criteria one uses to accept a belief in objective morality. Everyone on this planet comes to an understanding in their place in society based on their culture, upbringing and formal education. What makes the differing moral standards of the monotheistic Christian or Muslim preferable or superior to those of the polytheistic Hindu or (God forbid!!) the non-theistic Buddhist? How does one even accurately define the standards of objective morality? And if there isn’t a definition that everyone on the planet can agree to, then why bother? Why not just accept relativistic morality and the ethic of reciprocity (the Golden Rule version, not the eye for an eye version) as an acceptable standard to live one’s life by?
LikeLike
March 13, 2015 at 1:59 pm
SonofMan,
Given your statements, I think you bring confusion by saying “moral facts” exist. All that exists on your view is “moral claims.” But moral claims are just fictions since there is no objective basis for them in reality. They are invented by humans. On your view, morality is not real. It’s just personal preferences, cultural mores, utilitarian acts (things that help us get the ends we choose to value), or acts that help us survive. But if that’s what morals really are, then we shouldn’t even have a category for morals. After all, there is no distinction between “I don’t like carrots” and “I don’t like genocide.” They are both just preferences. Neither is there a distinction between “One shouldn’t wear white socks with black pants” and “One should not rape children.” Both are just social mores. Morality-speak is meaningless, and thus should be eliminated from your vocabulary.
But I know you can’t do that because you recognize that there is a qualitative difference between not liking carrots and not liking genocide. When is just a preference, while the other is a moral intuition. The same goes for the color of socks and child rape. You know they are not the same. That’s why people like you continue to speak of “morality” even though the word is vacuous in meaning on your view. You can’t escape it because you recognize that certain acts have a moral quality about them, while others do not, and that moral quality inheres within the act rather than just in the human mind that beholds it.
Jason
LikeLike
March 13, 2015 at 1:59 pm
Naz,
You are focusing on moral epistemology rather than moral ontology. I agree that not every moral fact is as obvious as others, but that does not take away from the fact that morals are objective, and that evolution cannot explain them.
Jason
LikeLike
March 13, 2015 at 1:59 pm
Nikeyo,
The argument is not a straw man because there are those who deny God’s existence but maintain that morals are objective (though you may not be one of them). The question is whether or not the appeal to evolution to ground those moral facts is sufficient. I am arguing that it’s not because evolution can only explain subjective morality, not objective morality.
As for threaded comments, I don’t have that option for this WordPress theme.
Jason
LikeLike
March 13, 2015 at 1:59 pm
Bob,
I have listed to Greg Koukl and Michael Shermer’s 3 hour radio debate in which Michael Shermer argued that he was a moral objectivist. Koukl tried his best to show him that he’s really not, but to no avail. So while I agree that Shermer is not truly an objectivist, he claims to be. He doesn’t claim to believe that all morality is relative.
I’m not dismissing Shermer. I’m showing that he can’t ground objective morality via evolution.
As for the differences in moral beliefs, again, this is a confusion between moral epistemology (how we know moral truths) and moral ontology (do moral truths exist?). While there may be moral truths that are difficult to discern and to which humans will disagree (though often the disagreements are regarding the facts to which we apply the moral principle, rather than what the moral principles are themselves), it does not follow that there are no objective moral truths.
Jason
LikeLike
March 13, 2015 at 3:05 pm
Shermer’s views on various ethical systems are contained in a somewhat rambling chapter 6 of his Science of Good and Evil. I shouldn’t put words in his mouth, but I think he would agree that one can’t ground objective morality via evolution, nor should one try to.
LikeLike
March 14, 2015 at 1:30 pm
Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men – extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9-14)
A lesson in morals from the Book of Job:
LikeLike
March 14, 2015 at 1:52 pm
IMO “objective morality” doesn’t exist. Morality has “evolved” over the years as we have become more enlightened. Therefore, either we are setting the standard or the standard has not been fully revealed to us yet.
LikeLike
March 14, 2015 at 2:07 pm
Jason –
Your entire definition of what objectivity is in relation to human morality is based on a religious perspective. To attack Sam Harris’ preposition on that assumption is attacking an argument that does not exist. You can’t argue that Sam Harris is arguing for an action as intrinsically good, there is nothing intrinsic in his description of morality. It is good and thus moral FOR humanity. The “objectivity” of it is defined by a subjective relationship , between societies. It is, likewise, an evolving process.Morality is not stagnant.
A morality that evolves, and is based in the coherency of societal functions, is not the same “objectivity” than your perspective of it is. To a non-theist, the only objectivity that exists is ours, there is nothing outside of humanity. Therefore your subjectivity, is our objectivity.
The discussion would be much more clearer without such words at all.
LikeLike
March 14, 2015 at 10:30 pm
Jason:
Nothing can explain objective morality; not evolution, not creationism, not mythology, why? Because there is no such thing as Oblective Morality it does not and cannot exist.
Hardly any wonder then, that no explanation can be put forward.
LikeLike
March 15, 2015 at 5:44 am
You guys are talking past each other. It’s perfectly valid for the theist to believe in objective morality. It’s equally valid for the non-theist to reject the concept. Where Jason errs is in implying that the scientific study of moral systems is suspect because it cannot address objective morality and those who work in that field can’t be trusted because they are just a bunch of atheistic evolutionists. It’s a false dichotomy. Whether given to Jews, Christians, Muslims or Hindus, objective morals are handed down by a supernatural being and as such, by definition, are not subject to scientific study in the first place. As a caveat, I haven’t read Harris yet. Maybe he crosses the line and attempts to apply science to pronouncements of a supreme being. Shermer doesn’t.
LikeLike
March 15, 2015 at 12:26 pm
Jason:
In the last sentence of your commentary:
“Only the existence of a personal and omnibenevolent God can explain the existence of objective moral values and our obligation to obey these moral values.”
PART ONE:
Now does it then follow, if one believes the above statement, that: The existence of objective moral values can explain the existence of a personal and omnibenevolent God and our obligation to obey this personal and omnibenevolent God?
OR
Does the existence of something else, other than objective moral values, explain the existence of a personal and ominbenevolent God? Or is the Object of your position here, to use objective moral acts to explain(or prove) the existence of a personal omnibenevolent God?
PART TWO:
If objective moral value is determine by the act alone(…… rooted in the moral character of the act itself, wholly independent of what any human may think about it.) and not the perpetrator of the act, was the act of the cat that attacked the dog that was attacking the child an objective moral act? If so, do animals have an obligation to obey these moral values?
And if not, is it only humans then who are obligated to obey these objective moral acts?
SEE VIDEO HERE:
LikeLike
April 3, 2015 at 2:16 pm
[…] all moral theories end up with a subjective version of morality (including evolutionary explanations of morality), in which moral values have their genesis in the human will in one way or […]
LikeLike
December 2, 2015 at 9:08 pm
[…] A helpful discussion on objectivity of morality on comment section of blog post here: […]
LikeLike