Can there be an objective morality?

Thomas from Presence

I know this one might be a aloof but in this age without God what holds us from killing ourselves. I know that a lot of people believe in God still but does the majoritytruly believe in a final judgement? Is there an objective idea of good and evil?

WHO OR WHAT FILLS THE GOD-SIZED GAP WE HAVE CREATED?

Something better or as time goes on Tom predicts dark ages moral less society.
Is social contract strong enough?

Sand

WHO OR WHAT FILLS THE GOD-SIZED GAP WE HAVE CREATED?

human relationships, humour, ambition, pride and exspensive accessories.

People mightnt believe in a godly final judgement anymore (least not until their deathbeds perhaps when you tend to get a lot more superstious - or maybe youre just hedging your bets) but they certainly belive in an everpresent judgement by their peers - hence moral behaviour as decided by the current views of society. Humans remain social animals afterall.

)

I know this one might be a aloof but in this age without God what holds us from killing ourselves.

Seeing as the exsistence of God ( or somesuch) is used to encourage people to die for pointless causes why exactly would the absence of God encourage you to die for a pointless cause ( suicide? ). Assuming we know god doesnt exsist why would you exchange a world where you can experience for nothingness ( which is pretty undefinable seeing as youre dead)? t least if you thought god did exsist youd be happy to die knowing you got heaven waiting for you.

Ajnag

Do No Harm.

azezil

I think of Religion as a necessary part of any society’s natural development. It sets out a set of guidelines to better understanding and social unity. We have evolved as a society thus no longer require "the fear of god" to know what’s right and wrong.

Something better or as time goes on Tom predicts dark ages moral less society.
Is social contract strong enough?

Some people would undoubtedly use the absence of an over-seer as an excuse to explore the riches of their new found freedom. This could cause social disfunction but in time we will find a healthy middle ground.

WHO OR WHAT FILLS THE GOD-SIZED GAP WE HAVE CREATED?

Ourselves, our own needs, desires, wants. Its far healthier to please yourself than to worry about the will of an unseen, unknown divine entity.

JustHalf

"We have evolved beyond God"... what egoistic crap.

Let's face it, we humans are bastards.

pro_gnostic_8

No, Azezil’s proposition (I think) was that society has evolved beyond the “need” for a belief in a God as the arbiter of right and wrong. This is a very interesting idea ........... one I had not considered before, and one which I think is probably correct. Does society at this stage of development require the interdict of a “Higher Power” to dissuade us from wrong-doing, or has humanity acquired the capacity of conscience from the shared experience of societal moral concepts?

Certainly, human beings in general now are distinguished by greater compassion and understanding from those of earlier ages. Of course, there will always be a percentage of people capable of wrongdoing of a more individual nature (robbery, assault, etc) but I believe that, all in all, western society is now in a far more agreeable state than at any previous point in history. God might not be dead yet, but, His rules and regulations are an anachronism.

azezil

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
No, Azezil’s proposition (I think) was that society has evolved beyond the “need” for a belief in a God as the arbiter of right and wrong

Precisely.

Look at the African states, a people with a relatively primitive social structure. Religion is sweeping across the continent like wildfire, local superstitions are being swept aside for the teachings of the church. I think we can agree for the most part that’s a good thing.

DadaKopf

It's the general consensus today that there's no objective morality. It's also general consensus that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. Since the Renaissance and Reformation, there has been, in the West, a steady 'disenchantment' of nature - as things have become more measurable, and therefore able to be given a quantitive truth value, superstition has been replaced with scientific 'certainty'. The room left for supersition of any variety has been dramatically reduced. God has been squeezed out.

However, as much as we now focus on the measurable things in life, morality continues to be a problem. There have been many attempts at objectifying morals, such as Utilitarianism or Marxism and even Darwinism, but after 2,000 years of high civilisation we haven't found a universally true moral code. This says a lot about the character of morality.

Ludwig Feuerbach said that God is the projection of Man's own aspirations, the distance we place ourselves from ourselves makes us strive for perfection. I think this is true, but many different people(s) have created very different aspirations as they come from very different times, places, cultures. It was once possible to have an 'objective' morality because people didn't move around much, people could live their lives without meeting a single person from a different culture. Nowadays, being faced with a multiplicity of cultures, religions and world views tells us that moralities are complex products of particular contexts. So, if we think back to Feuerbach, I suppose there are many gods because there are many contexts.

What's a context? Everything that exists in the social reality of a group of people in a particular space and time. This includes: individual interpretation; a public, intersubjective discourse which culminates in a public morality; the common stock of knowledge including culture and science; sedimented memory; the present social structure and power relations (including the control of knowledge). This reality leads to an understanding of morality as a highly complex interaction between these elements.

But that's not to say that each morality is untrue - in fact, each moral system is true for that context. But it's never 'objective'. The context grounds the truth of the morality which is, itself, constantly open to amendment and augmentation as the social reality moves along, telling its own story. The difference between us and a tribe in the Amazon is that the tribe is isolated, giving them the idea that there is nothing else outside their world view. We're open to a multiplicity of world views and this has caused us a lot of trouble. I wouldn't like to say, though, that the Amazonian tribe has it easy.

A morality isn't simply a way for us to live together in harmony. It's a totalising system through which we apprehend the world meaningfully. It's not helpful to view moralities just as benign ways that were invented, or bestowed upon us, to make us better people and live together in peace and harmony. Moralities are products of our social reality which are more often than not used as a means of control - of our control over nature and other people's control over us through power-knowledge. As contingencies change, so too do moral codes. But they change for a reason. First, they change because our knowledge of the world is constantly changing but more importantly, moralities change because of calls for liberation as much as political domination.

pro_gnostic_8

Indeed, morality is contextual to specific cultures/societies. This being the case, then you must agree that the common morality of a more advanced society is more proper (more moral?) than that of a society on a lower level of development.

This is where the "Azezil Proposition" is of great relevance. Religion and "God" are influences for good in primitive societes which have not yet achieved a common cultural understanding of "right".

However, our society (western democratic) has perhaps evolved sufficiently so that we don't require a God anymore to make us desist from wrong-doing through fear of an "after-life" punishment.

pro_gnostic_8

The more I consider the "Azezil Proposition" the more I can see its inherent truth.

It also raises another question.......... Hasn't our society evolved sufficiently to, in fact, dispose of God altogether? Our societal morality has developed adequately to supersede Gods morality..........aspects of which are now widely accepted as downright AMORAL.....e.g. the imposition of our own religious beliefs through force on more backward cultures, the persecution of homosexuals, the burning of witches etc.
Maybe the God our parents knew is not a relevant moral authority for our time.

JustHalf

I believe my head is about to explode.

darthmise

I'm with ye on this one Justhalf.

I can't believe that you (and i'm talking mainly to Azezil and pro-gnostic-8) youo can stop and think; "my my, havne't we as a species evolved nicely.

seamus

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
This being the case, then you must agree that the common morality of a more advanced society is more proper (more moral?) than that of a society on a lower level of development.

No, I don't agree. Who is to say which society is more advanced? Surely not us, we live in a society, thereby removing any objectivity. And advanced in which way? Technologically advanced, hey that's simple, but morally advanced, or spiritually advanced? By spiritual generally I mean a person's own feelings about them and their surroundings and how they fit in, and life in general.

If I was going to say who are the more advanced society, morally or spiritually, I would look back at the Native Americans. Before the Europeans came and took their lands, and slaughtered them, they lived in peace and harmony with the land and with eachother. I would consider them far more advanced then us with our self-centeredness and constant need to make ourselves more powerful and egotistical.

Advanced society? Pfft. I don't see much difference between us and the people of medievel times. We just know more, and live in a different environment, that's all.

Venom

Look at the African states, a people with a relatively primitive social structure. Religion is sweeping across the continent like wildfire, local superstitions are being swept aside for the teachings of the church. I think we can agree for the most part that’s a good thing.

What ever else it is its in no way a good thing.None of these "primitive" peoples have caused as much widespread death,torture and misery as the so called holy church.This isint even taking into account the amount of modern day lives damaged and destroyed by pervert priests.

Sure they can now help fill the coffers of the Vatican even more.They can now consider there women second class people in the eyes of God and the church.

The truly sad thing is they lasted so long as godless heathens just to be caught at a time where most civilised countries are getting to the point where they can see the church for what it really is.


And as for the original question,the reasion most people dont kill left, right and center is because were a civilised society for most parts and fear going to jail for a long time for the other parts.

DadaKopf

Good post, seamus, but you should be more careful in what you say. First you say that it's not possible for anyone to objectively judge the goodness of one society over the other and then you say that the native Americans' society was the most peaceful and healthy.

My point is that it's not helpful for people to become nostalgic for the past like that because it sets up a problematic that brings people nowhere in addressing current problems, not least because 1) often times nostalgia is pure imagination and 2) it subverts any historical accuracy and objectivity that is possible when attempting to establish historical, ethical patterns.

shotamoose

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8

However, our society (western democratic) has perhaps evolved sufficiently so that we don't require a God anymore to make us desist from wrong-doing through fear of an "after-life" punishment.

I think you should be careful about applying evolutionary ideas to society. We've changed , certainly, but it's arguable whether it's for the better. As Seamus points out, the Native Americans lived more in harmony with nature. On the other hand, we've got longer life expectency, we're more tolerant in some ways, but our lifestyles (and by 'our' I those of us living in the more wealthy countries) do a lot of damage to the natural environment when you add them all up. For example, if China were to develop along the same path as the USA has and attain similar levels of resource consumption and pollution, the Earth's ecology would be change drastically for the worse far faster than is projected at the moment.

As for God and modern society, could you not argue that wealthy Western culture has got rid of the old fellow not because we're so smart and well-adjusted but because our lives have become so amoral. Not immoral - I'm not condemning anybody's lifestyle here - but amoral: our moral processes are put under severe stress by modern society. When humans evolved, they lived in far smaller communities with far more predictable events and behaviour. Even when the main religions were developing, societies were more predictable, local and stable. Now we encounter thousands of strangers every day in some way, and our actions -what we buy, what waste we produce, for example - can have some ramifications for - at least - thousands more, the vast majority of whom we'll never meet. 'Globalised' society presents us with very strong and contradictory messages of powerlessness and distant responsibility, which make it very tough to hold on to moral prescriptions like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". So maybe most people have just given up, or have formed their own secular moralities to deal with all this.

prophet88

I'm in a web caf at the moment so do not have time to read everybody's post so if this has been mentioned already then i apologise.

Too many people are making a very big mistake these days.

Everyone who wants to believe in God, cannot 'believe' in him. A certain (Unknown) percentage of the population 'try' to believe. They fall into the dreaded phase of Try too hard and you get the opposite intent.

In conclusion, it is much easier to have faith than to believe. When you have faith you will see that it is no longer fact that rules but something else that need not be described. Any queries you have will then be shifted to the side and a sense of ease will take their place.

Fact.

Prophet88

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by shotamoose



As for God and modern society, could you not argue that wealthy Western culture has got rid of the old fellow not because we're so smart and well-adjusted but because our lives have become so amoral.

No moose, I honestly believe western society has not become amoral but if anything more moral. The Native American example referred to above illustrates my point that society's morality has evolved beyond God morality. I did say in a previous post, QUOTE: " Our societal morality has developed adequately to supersede Gods morality..........aspects of which are now widely accepted as downright AMORAL.....e.g. the imposition of our own religious beliefs through force on more backward cultures".

Can I give an example of a personal nature? about 10 years ago I was into hare coursing in a big way...... in a very big way. I used to throw live rabbits to my greyhounds to "blood" them. I now know that this was morally wrong and reprehensible behaviour. However, Gods morality see's nothing wrong with this barbarism -- (the animals of the field are for man's use and benefit,etc,etc) whereas the morality of society condemns such cruel practices. My change of heart in this instance is a mirror of the evolving morality of society while the morality of God has stayed moribund.

seamus

Yeah Dada, I probably should have said 'IMO'. While I personally think that about the native Americans, my opinion is tainted for many reasons, mainly; I already live in a society, thereby creating a 'grass is always greener' effect, and, I have never experienced the native american lifestyle except through it's romanticising by other people. Objectivity: Out the door.

Which can be applied to anyone's argument. If people say we are more advanced, without even experiencing the other society, the argument is invalid. Which I think is close to what Dadakopf was saying

pro_gnostic_8, I tend to believe that God doesn't play a massive part in morality (at least not any more). Morality evolves and changes, just like society does. For example, it seems now that we are far more relaxed on certain areas, then say, our grandparents were. But if we went back to the 18th century, and they saw the way our grandparents lived, they'd be outraged.

But which is righter? Are we more amoral than our grandparents? Or are we more correct? Well, neither. The evolution of society encompasses (and is caused by) many things. The most significant shifts in mass mentality in the last 100 years have come about mainly due to technological advances. And it's not just morality that's changed, it's everything. Simply, we know more now, so we can happily dismiss some of the old ideals. Others must be kept. For example, murder is wrong. Why? Well, because essentially, you are ending a person's life. However, if we knew for certain that there was just an afterlife, no heaven or hell, murder wouldn't be taken half as serious, even 'murder with consent' would probably be completely legal.

So, basically what I am saying is, we cannot say that we are well advanced morally. Morality only fills in the gaps where there's an uncertainty as to the exact outcome of an action.

Primitive tribes gobble up Christianity, because it helps fill the gaps in their knowledge, it provides answers for your questions, once you have faith. Christianity is losing hold on western society for exactly the opposite reason - we know so many facts now that can rubbish their teachings. It's beliefs on contraception illustrate exactly my idea.

Buddhism is growing at a phenomenal rate - why because it fills gaps in our knowledge, and has less teachings based on 'incorrect facts'.

I don't know what I was trying to say there, but basically I think that we're not losing God, or evolving away from that belief, rather we're evolving the idea of God to suit our own needs.....

darthmise

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8



Can I give an example of a personal nature? about 10 years ago I was into hare coursing in a big way...... in a very big way. I used to throw live rabbits to my greyhounds to "blood" them. I now know that this was morally wrong and reprehensible behaviour. However, Gods morality see's nothing wrong with this barbarism -- (the animals of the field are for man's use and benefit,etc,etc) whereas the morality of society condemns such cruel practices. My change of heart in this instance is a mirror of the evolving morality of society while the morality of God has stayed moribund.

Thats not an example of a western society evolving!!
Thats a sign of getting older and learning right from wrong.

When you say society, give an example using society, not an individual.

Like western society exploiting third world eastern society work forces.
Like western society actually trying to make a profit from ridding Africa of AIDS.
Like western Society bombing third world countries in the name of the "war against terror", when we should be helping them.
We constantly seek to create new methods of mass destruction.
We chase the almighty dollar like a carrot on a string.
We become more and more greedy with every passing generation.

If a society is going to evolve beyond a god, it has to evolve into a society where each member of that soceity belives themselves to be their own god. Believes that they owe themselves a duty to do right by others.
Thats a spiritual journey and spiritual evolution is very much an eastern strength... Shintoism, buddism, hinduism.

I honestly belive the west has become so drawn into a "Rat-Race" existance that we go through most of our lives with our heads down and don't take the time to smell the flowers.


Study the human race from a third person perspective. We are not a species to be proud of. We think ourselves superior to every other creature on this planet. We bleed this planet dry for our own gains. We are nothing more than a parasite.

The esteem in which you hold the human race frightens me.

JustHalf

Originally posted by seamus
Christianity is losing hold on western society for exactly the opposite reason - we know so many facts now that can rubbish their teachings. It's beliefs on contraception illustrate exactly my idea.

I think you're confusing "Catholocism" and "Christianity". There's nothing in the bible that says you can't use condoms.

seamus

Originally posted by JustHalf
I think you're confusing "Catholocism" and "Christianity". There's nothing in the bible that says you can't use condoms.

In the Old Testament, there's a story (my memory is vague) about a couple who would have sex, and the man would withdraw, ejaculating on the ground. They were then 'struck down' by God. The reasing being that it was believed (until the 19th century) that the man carried the child, simply placing it into the women, therefore by masturbating or doing anything other than unbarriered, penetrative sex, you were committing murder.

But apologies, yes, in the context I was mainly referring to Catholicism

shotamoose

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8

Can I give an example of a personal nature? about 10 years ago I was into hare coursing in a big way...... in a very big way. I used to throw live rabbits to my greyhounds to "blood" them. I now know that this was morally wrong and reprehensible behaviour. However, Gods morality see's nothing wrong with this barbarism ....

You still seem to be comparing moralities in terms of their quality, which is a circular argument since each moral framework will always view itself as the best. If I were so inclined, I could argue along the lines of your coursing example that while a certain 'modern' morality sees nothing right about the 'barbarism' of hare coursing, it sees nothing wrong about abortion, and, worse than that, doesn't even acknowledge there to be a contradiction.

But this line of argument will never bring you closer to answering the question in this thread. Religion seems to provide an objective basis for morality since it gives us - ideally - a constant and unchanging reference point against which to judge everything else. For many, that reference point is no loner adequate. So a lot of us essentially make it up as we go along.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by shotamoose


You still seem to be comparing moralities in terms of their quality, which is a circular argument since each moral framework will always view itself as the best

I should have hoped I wasn't!. There is only the one morality under discussion......... western democratic society's morality, and if you accept the Azezil Proposition (which I do) that western society has now evolved sufficiently that we do not need to believe in Gods morality to lead a moral existence then you have to accept by extrapolation that society's morality has superseded Gods morality.

Incidetally moose, I think your last sentence "so a lot of us make it (morality) as we go along" neatly sums up the evolving nature of morality in western society.

azezil

Originally posted by Venom
What ever else it is its in no way a good thing.None of these "primitive" peoples have caused as much widespread death,torture and misery as the so called holy church.This isint even taking into account the amount of modern day lives damaged and destroyed by pervert priests.

The church was founded by primitive people.. Primitive people are violent, its easy for us to look back now with our evolved sense of morality and shake our heads and so forth, but that was done by human beings, humans have the capacity for acts of great love and compassion as well as horrible violence but my point is that the teachings of the church, its ideals and beliefs are innately good and can provide a clear set of guidelines for an underdeveloped culture.



p.s. i am not pro_gnostic_8

ykt0di9url7bc3

Our Fathers were models for God, The 10 commandments are a blueprint for an ideal utopia, great for a primitive culture but when a society developes far enough then the society starts filling in the blanks for God....If you steal, you now do not fear the wrath of God but you fear the police....Its not St. Peter that judges you but the courts....In our western society now, we dont wait till the poor beggar dies but take it upon ourselves to act now...Religion becomes a hobby/social gathering/greatly appeals to the elderly and an after-thought of philosophy...[IMO]

I still try to keep my religion and still keep my intrest in cosmology/biology and other sciences...where i believe what i learn and research but keep my faith for God....

Is there civilisation without religion or someone to hold responsible when some thing out of our hands goes wrong?

<islander> hey the volcano is about to blow! how can this happen?
<shaman> ah..em...God did it!
<islander> i thought chuck did it
<shaman> no its God and you pissed him off!!!
<islander> i better keep him happy!

bonkey

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
There is only the one morality under discussion......... western democratic society's morality, and if you accept the Azezil Proposition (which I do) that western society has now evolved sufficiently that we do not need to believe in Gods morality to lead a moral existence then you have to accept by extrapolation that society's morality has superseded Gods morality.

Given that the vast, vast percentage of western civilisation are actually religious people, I fail to see how you can claim that our societal morality supersedes "God's" morality, when that societal morality is essentially a mix of all of our various religious moralities.

Remove the religion, and you remove the underlying backbone which actually supports our societal morality. Personally, I dont believe the two are seperable at a societal level. Sure, at an individual level its no problem, but not for a whole society.

Look at things like religious and political polls that are typically carried out in boards. We are highly unrepresentative of society. We come from the niche groups, not the mainstream.

For us to believe that we, individually, have grown beyond religious morality is simple, and quite possibly true in most cases.

For us to believe that mainstream society has followed in our footsteps is ridiculous. Its about as credible as saying that society has evolved beyond violence because we, as a group of non-representative individuals, see no need in violence.

jc

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by SearrarD

Is there civilisation without religion or someone to hold responsible when some thing out of our hands goes wrong?

<islander> hey the volcano is about to blow! how can this happen?
<shaman> ah..em...God did it!
<islander> i thought chuck did it
<shaman> no its God and you pissed him off!!!
<islander> i better keep him happy!

I guess in times of catastrophe or impending disaster, it is ingrained in the human psyche after 2000 years of implanted religious teaching for a lot of people to turn to “God”.

Still, I suspect that if it was certain to happen that an asteroid was to hit tomorrow with extinction of the human race guaranteed, a surprisingly large number of people would tonight simply get drunk, have a few spliffs and get their their rocks off one last time.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by bonkey


Given that the vast, vast percentage of western civilisation are actually religious people,

With respect, I have to totally and absolutely disagree with this assessment. Anecdotal evidence from a wide circle of acquaintances of varying age-groups and social backgrounds convinces me that, in fact, the majority of people are now outside any religious commitment. Agnostic at the least and quite possibly atheistic. And of the remainder that do still practice religion, many do so just out of convention and maybe because of peer pressure to raise their kids in a “God-fearing” home environment.
IMO, Western European is the most un-religious society (exception of North Korea etc.) on the planet today.Various reports and studies have proved beyond doubt that Mass attendance’s are falling steadily in this country. Other European countries are experiencing similar downturns in religious observation.

I do believe that religion does serve a purpose in educating primitive peoples in good, but in Western society with it’s own evolved morality “Gods” morality is an anachronism.


Quote
___________________________________________________
Look at things like religious and political polls that are typically carried out in boards. We are highly unrepresentative of society. We come from the niche groups, not the mainstream.
___________________________________________________

BTW,Isn’t it a bit elitist to claim that Boards.ie contributors are the vanguard of progressive thinking in this country. My position is that these polls you refer to on Boards approximate to the actual views of the public in general in this matter.

shotamoose

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
BTW,Isn’t it a bit elitist to claim that Boards.ie contributors are the vanguard of progressive thinking in this country.

He didn't say anything of the sort. You're the one who's saying that secular morality is 'progressing beyond' religious morality.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by shotamoose


He didn't say anything of the sort.

I know he didn't say it ...... I said it!
And what I said is the direct and logical corollary or inference of what he did say which was
Quote:
__________________________________________________
We are highly unrepresentative of society. We come from the niche groups, not the mainstream.
__________________________________________________