Secular objective human morality

It's frequently said by theists that objective morality can only come from their god. I strongly disagree with that for a number of reasons (like Euthyphro's dilemma), but chief among them is that I think it's pretty easy to make an argument for the existence of objective truths about human morality that does not involve a god. The most obvious truth is that life is better than death. The practical effect of this is that human societies have arisen. Any society for which this is not objectively true simply could not exist. Even an individual for which "life is better than death" does not hold could not exist since he or she would ignore or even embrace any of the numerous fatal situations that we all avoid each day.

With an argument for the existence of at least one secular, objective moral truth, I believe that means there are other such truths. I'm inclined to believe that "honesty is better than dishonesty" would be another, but I don't yet have a solid argument for it. "Pleasure is better than suffering" could be one as well, but that is even shakier.

No doubt there are folks here who disagree. Does anyone want to offer their own perspective, or show where my reasoning is flawed, or call me an idiot?

 

Ok, I've been meaning to make a thread at some point about Shelly Kagan, a professor of philosophy at Yale who gives some open resource lectures that can be found on youtube. This thread start discusses almost all the points that I would refer to him on, so I'm going to write something about him here.

There is a debate between Kagan and Bill Craig here, in which Kagan formulates an objective morality free from divine command. Craigs performance is the same as it always is, and he's not getting the objections he's used to, so if you want his views, you're probably better off finding it in some other debate.

Secondly, you talk a bit about the value of life and Kagan is most famous for his lecture series on death (here), which takes up all these matters in a very informative yet approachable manner. It is a total of 26 45-minute lectures, so it might not be something you pop over for an explanation on a particular subject, but it formulates a consistent and well balanced view on morality, death and their interaction.

But really, the reason why I like Kagan is that he formulates his arguments from basic principles. There is no underlying structure which you need to understand beforehand, no set of philosophical thoughts which you must accept to even understand the argument, the way some other debaters (both sides) do. He usually explains all the sides to an argument, not only his side, which is especially interesting in the debate, since instead of displaying the issue as two sided, he gives a fuller picture of the philosophical landscape (which emphasises the extent to which Craig has chosen a very narrow set of values), where most debaters just give their side.

I may give some more pointed arguments when this thread has started going properly, but the clips I've mentioned not only gave me a context for secular philosophy but sparked my interest in formal philosophy.

Also, it would not surprise me if Kagan was a bit of the inspiration to the philosophy professor from that God's-not-dead movie.

 

All right, I'll make a more specific post as well, although based on the view Kagan explains (and he does it better than me, but not as short).

The basis for the moral he proposes (I have not had time to consider all implications, so I hesitate so say I agree, but I will take that stance and I am interested in any comments) is a moral system such that rational, human beings from a veil of ignorance would opt into the system. Note that this is not necessarily a majority argument, for instance, the Nazis would probably not choose Nazism from behind a veil of ignorance (I doubt the Nazis would want to be Jews in Nazi Germany). Similarly, their rationality can also be called into question. I seem to remember there being some other details as well, but those are the broad strokes.

This does not rely on life being better than death, for instance, for some, suicide may be rational (I refer to the end of the lecture series). Honesty and pleasure can also be good things, but I don't think in themselves. Honesty is not good for honesty's sake, it is good because full disclosure usually leads to better decisions. Note also that this should be applied with the greater picture in mind, switching between lying and telling the truth based on only the situation will have effects on others' view of you, society's view on lies (which in turn impact others' tendency to lie regardless of the situation), and so on. This can be seen as ends justifying the means, but remember that the stereotype society that employs an ends-justify-the-means morality is bad, and thus using such a morality the way it is sometimes portrayed is not actually an end that justifies the means.

 

Your reasoning doesn't seem flawed to me. Generally, speaking I agree, but this is more an acceptance of anthropological information than a philosophical position. Humans, in order to survive, and just as importantly, 'survive well with their fellows', tend to certain behaviours - or you could say they avoid certain behaviours. As Swens puts it - we would all opt in from behind the veil.

While even the most ardent theist must acknowledge this, they may still hold out on the paradox of Knowing Good. If, as they claim, all objective morality comes from god (therefore we possess none by nature), how is it that they are able to determine that god is good?

 

Great point.

 

To me morality is not rocket science and does not require the reading of an old tome. I think murder is wrong... why? Because I think it would suck to be murdered. A large part of my morality can be summed up by saying; I should treat others how I would want to be treated. Where did I come by my morality? My own logic and common sense.

I do not believe in a universal morality, but there are moral codes that are generally more accepted around the globe... like its immoral to murder. Where things can get contentious is when we try to come to an agreement on what is murder. Is abortion murder... doctor assisted suicide... capital punishment? In some areas of the globe you can be still put to death for being gay or adultery.

 

I'm somewhat familiar with the veil of ignorance idea, I think. The concept involves looking at a system with no foreknowledge of where you will be in that system, correct? I haven't seen anything from Kagan, but I think I've heard Matt Dillahunty reference Kagan's ideas before. It makes a lot of sense, but I can't tell from your description whether it says anything about objectivity versus subjectivity.

Regarding your comment about suicide being rational, I agree that can be the case. I don't think it has anything to do with the objectivity or subjectivity of morality, though. Suicide is a means to an end of some kind of suffering. Life is better than death still holds true in that situation. It would be better to end the suffering while maintaining life. Absent the ability to end the suffering in that way, suicide is rational while still being either immoral or at least less moral than a solution that does not involve death.

As for honesty, I think it is intrinsically good. Like the suicide example, even if dishonesty ultimately reaches a desired conclusion that appears to be unreachable with honesty, it would be more morally correct to have reached that conclusion with honesty. Dishonestly telling my wife she looks great in an outfit to spare her feelings is not as morally right as if I could spare her feelings while being honest. As I said before, though, I don't yet have as solid an argument for "honesty is better than dishonesty" being an objective moral truth.

 

He hasn't in anything I can remember, at least not to the extent that it would be worth tracking down.

I can't quite see that. All the examples I can think of of honesty recline on a notion of consequences of other kinds of morality. Not always directly, but eventually.

- - - Updated - - -

He hasn't in anything I can remember, at least not to the extent that it would be worth tracking down.

I can't quite see that. All the examples I can think of of honesty recline on a notion of consequences of other kinds of morality. Not always directly, but eventually.

 

What am I saying? Of course he does.

He introduces the notion that humans have objective morals with the idea that we have the mental capacity to consider our actions. This together with this notion of a set of hypothetical but perfectly rational individuals (from behind a veil of ignorance) who would agree on a set of morals make these morals objective. The only leap of faith, as it were, that I can see is the introduction of these hypothetical rational people. They more or less play exactly the same role as God does in Christianity, but they are not required to be real and they are not required to be all-round perfect. There is also the issue of whether anything is objective, but that topples the authority of God just as easily as it topples the authority of the hypothetical people.

In fact, once we stipulate that these hypothetical people don't contradict themselves (either philosophically in their essence or in their views), it seems to me that the secular morality is strictly more believable than the Christian version, since the only difference is that Christianity requires God to have extra features above those required by the contractarian (contractarian = pertaining to the contract the hypothetical people agree to).

 

Morality's a part of nature - nevertheless I think that religion can be a good moral motivator, especially to simpler peoples and cultures that may not have access to reading or higher education.

Not everyone on the planet has access to all of the in-depth psychological studies regarding human nature and interaction - so simpler morals (like those in the Bible) could be helpful to them on a personal level

 

At the risk of over-simplification, that which is good is beneficial to humans. Is it good because it's beneficial or because it's intrinsically good? I think it's because it's beneficial. So I suppose is subscribe to an instrumental view of morality.

 

I don't think you understand what morality is, much less objective morality. What does survival instinct have to do with morality? Please define "objective morality" since you are the thread starter.

We have no free will, so considering our actions is irrelevant.

Objective morality doesn't rely on popularity/agreement among individuals or groups. Objective morality is independent of beings. Objective morality is simply not a possibility, with or without a god. Morality that relies on god is not objective, because it's dependent upon a being, and that being is the one creating the morality and can change it's mind. Makes no difference if it's god or a group of humans or monkeys.

 

Any naturalist can tell you that many species have what could be called a morality, and that each morality is specific to the species. So morality can be thought of as being objective in the sense that there is more-or-less a "human nature" (or dog nature, or cat nature, or chimp nature, etc.) and that morality suitable to each nature is objetively so. However, clearly there is no "objective morality" independent of the nature of the species for which it works.

I read recently about a game. The way it worked was, there were two individuals, and one of them started with all the money. That person had the option of sharing as much or as little as he chose with the other person. The other person had the option of either accepting the offered distribution, or turning it down so that neither person got anything at all.

Now, straight game theory says that if the other person gets anything at all, something is better than nothing. And indeed, gorillas taught to play this game (using food) played exactly that way, declining the distribution only if they got nothing. Humans were VERY different. In general, anything less than about 40% was turned down. Humans demanded a fairly equitable distribution and were willing to do without if it didn't happen. And this matches the lifestyles of these species, where gorillas tend to live alone, and humans are gregarious and live in groups where sharing and cooperation are imperative. So a basic sense of equity evolved into humans. Anyone who has owned cats knows that the golden rule would never occur to a cat.

I've read considerable speculation that the human notions of right and wrong evolved into us (and our ancestor species) over a few million years. Humans (and our hominid ancestors) did NOT evolve as anywhere near the fastest, or the strongest, or the most evasive, or most arboreal, etc. Humans had far from the best hearing, eyesight, or sense of smell. What humans had was an unparalleled ability to work in groups, to have a true division of labor, to be cooperative and organized.

Our sense of morality, of right and wrong, directed behaviors optimized for groups of up to maybe 200 people. NOT sharing voluntarily would me the failure of the group. And humans were pretty ineffective and helpless outside the group. It's not hard to imagine people who didn't cooperate or share being exiled. Exile meant death, and did NOT lead to breeding success. The best cooperators bred best. And that sense had to be instinctive, intuitive, natural. In emergencies, it's common for people to take amazing risks, and for several people to die trying to save one. This has evolved into us.

Compare with, say, cats. Most cats live alone, coming together only to breed (and that's dicey). Cats have absolutely no instinct of fair play, or of sharing, or of anything like a quid pro quo. It's every cat for itself. And contrast that with dogs, who are comfortable living and hunting in packs, with hierarchal chains of leadership, and mutual obligations and status and a pecking order. These are necessary for group hunters. Dog morality is much closer to human morality than is cat morality, resembling the chains of command of the human military organizations.

Well, anyway, morality is species specific, and evolves to enable a lifestyle suitable to each species.

 

Survival instinct isn't related to morality, and I didn't say that it is. Anyway, objective morality would be principles that determine right from wrong that hold true regardless of the individuals involved. For instance, "rape is bad unless pedophiles are the ones being raped" would be subjective morality. "Rape is bad, period" would be objective morality.

It's lovely that you come in to a thread, misunderstand the OP, and decide that the person you've misunderstood doesn't understand the topic, though. I hope your further contributions to the thread are more positive.

 

I think of it more as using anthropological info as evidence for a philosophical position.

As to your second paragraph, I've never seen a theist satisfactorily answer that question. "God has written morality on our hearts" or some such nonsense.

 

There is a lot to chew on in this topic. In general, I tend to not see how objective morality can exist in practice (function). But IF (#bigIF) there is a way for objective morality to exist, it is ONLY through an ultimate authority (God). Most theists don't have a logically coherent concept of God to even be able to make this judgement, which IMO would be ultimately impossible for a mortal/temporal mind to make. How can a mortal mind even conceive of what a God may deem "objective"? You can't default to a holy book because the Euthyphro Dilemma pretty much stops this in it's tracks.

I agree. Truth seems to be more of a transcendental property (presupposes) that is necessary for us to even have knowledge. Knowledge is a vital component of Objective Morality, because you can't make a moral judgement without knowledge. Blind men are not good at baseball. <<< hashtag that (*)(*)(*)(*)

I'm not sure this has been explored thoroughly. There are many cases where we could say that death is preferable to life in any imaginable cases of suffering. Kevorkian aside, this is so vague that you'd have to apply it across different species, aka Anthropogenic Global Warming is killing all other species and therefore is objectively immoral.

You are basically conceding that there is an evaluation that MUST occur before any objective moral judgement. This basically puts objective morality "in the mind of the evaluator", and we're back at square one.

Again, it appears that "morality" is the practice/function, and the truth is the source that morality draws from. One objective moral truth may suggest that others exist. But I don't think it is clear that we've found even one. Maybe our language is limited, or maybe it's our concepts of right and wrong that are limiting us?

To be "inclined" sounds a lot like "common sense". One thing I'm confident in is that Psychology has made a mockery of our "common sense". I see "honesty" as just a function of reporting "knowledge". You can only have "knowledge" if you know "truth". The verification of a truth statement is up for debate, but as it relates to knowledge and honesty is not. Whenever I see a theist use language like "The Truth" I cringe because I immediately know it is not a sound philosophical position, and is based on "asymmetrical" indoctrination...aka "I've never thought about what I believe and why I believe it."

Very shaky. Not only because the fact that pleasure is "fundamentally" subjective, it's the interpretation (function) of the mind suffer/pleasure...but also because of the ability of the mind to "transfer" suffering for a greater cause. I.E. Gandhi fasting to influence others toward political unity.

There are so many angles to this that I cringe when somebody claims they have the answer.

 

A Reductionist? Who can learn anything from a R...oh.

 

It would seem that those who are Highly Religious see a GOD as a GOD that approves of what any particular religious group is doing.

They all feel it is THEIR GOD....and such a GOD is THIS...not THAT.

Fortunately such things exist with Santa...the Tooth Fairy...Easter Bunny...etc.

AboveAlpha

 

I mean mostly that he's a teacher to a greater extent than a debater. He displays different versions of philosophy, including non-reductionist ones, and show, if nothing else, that Craig has a number of fix ideas which his argument hinges on and which have not been agreed upon and are not necessarily true. First principles not only as the first principles of a certain philosophy, but first principles in the attempt to determine what philosophical thoughts one should hold.

 

The first and most important tenet of Philosophy is that anyone attempting to teach any form of it is completely full of S#!%!

AboveAlpha

 

Uh, you just said that objective morality can exist aside from god, and used survival instinct as example of that. You either have no idea what you're talking about or are poorly communicating what you're saying.

 

The idea proposed by Kagan is based on Compatibilism, which states that it is possible to have free will in a otherwise deterministic world. All this, however, depends strongly on the definition of free will, which is a bit shaky in the first place.

I see free will as it is often mentioned, in a much more high level context, as different from free will in the most fundamental metaphysical sense (or rather, I don't see it like that, but I've been forced to conclude that that's what people mean when they use the words). In that sense, it is quite possible for the lack of fundamental free will to force us to consider our actions with our higher level free will. Free will in its common sense means the ability to act in accordance to your will, regardless of any constraints on the will. Since the morality explained is not woven into the fabric of reality, but originates from our ability to, with our higher level free will, consider our actions, there is no need for the morality to address the fundamental free will, but it is quite content with dealing with the higher level of free will without stopping being a morality.

That being said, this version of contractism produces an objective morality which does not rely on popularity or otherwise on the current composition of the human race. This is done by putting the authority with a group of people (or rather, on a concept which is usually given a human wrapper in order to get people to understand that their beliefs should coincide with actual humans) whose existence (or composition) is not assumed, the way herd morality relies on a herd and divine morality depends on God. Thus, this morality does not depend on a being, but it depends on the idea that a certain kind of being could exist (which is a lot weaker a claim). Divine commandment goes out the window if the divine does not exist, but the agreement of hypothetical beings cannot depend on the existence of those beings, since they by definition don't exist anyway. It only relies on the philosophical possibility of these people existing, and that is unrelated to current popular thought or agreements in some existing group.

 

I believe that is true about most relations to most subjects =).

 

I certainly disagree with the first one. Life is mostly better than death. But plenty of people choose to commit suicide, and many thousands every year choose euthanasia or assisted suicide (even with its limited availability). You can kill in self-defense. Moreover, the definition of "life" itself is unclear. Only human life? When exactly does it begin and end? These questions dont have objective answers.

"Pleasure is better than suffering" is the one I would think comes closest to an objective truth. Without the existence of pleasure or suffering, I would say there is no point in having any moral discussions at all. If humans did not suffer or feel pleasure, then nothing would be immoral or good.

But even that is a subjective argument. In the end, I dont think the existence of objective morality cannot be proven. And this holds true both for secular and religious sources of morality.

 

The suffering doesn't change the idea that "life is better than death." What you're talking about with the Kevorkian side is ending suffering by ending life. But ending the suffering without ending life is better.

At that point I'm talking about evidence for the existence of the moral truth that "life is better than death" rather than the philosophy of it. Think o fit like arguing for the existence of gravity by discussing its effects, while not specifying the cause of its existence. So what I'm saying is that it's impossible for the moral truth to not exist.

You're right about these, of course. I'm hoping someone either has a good argument for them, or a starting point that leads me to a good argument, or a fairly definitive argument against. The subjective nature of pleasure and suffering is a pretty point against.