Moral Relativism and Objective Secular Morality

[SDJonathan]

This may be surprising, but even though I am an atheist, I disagree with those who espouse moral relativism, the idea that there are no absolute values of right and wrong in the universe. I, like Sam Harris, feel that there are objective moral values in this world, even though there is no god. I would like to state plainly to the Christians of this forum that if you disagree with those who support moral relativism, your objections are entirely legitimate, even from a secular standpoint. There are indeed objective moral values, and not all societies are created ethically equal.

But how, without God, can there be objective moral values?

Well, actually it's quite simple, once we define morality. What do we hope to achieve by being moral? Why is it undesirable to be immoral? Why does the golden rule make so much sense?

The answer is that morality is the endeavor to minimize suffering and maximize pleasure.

Let me demonstrate by giving an example used by Sam Harris. Imagine a world where every single sentient being spends their entire existence in a state of incomparable agony. They are made to suffer as much as possible, for as long as possible.

This, of course, would be the absolute worst world possible, and everything else is better. Everything else. Do you know anybody who would claim that there might be something worse than that, or that this might actually be good for us?

By accepting that point, that the above world is the worst world possible, and that everything else is better, you have accepted that there are indeed objective moral values, in that it is possible to say that one society is objectively worse or better than another in terms of its approach to the well-being of living creatures.

So yes, moral relativism is false, and the faithful are completely right to say so.

However, these moral truths are also secular, and independant of religion.

Why? Well, if God were the creator of objective moral values, then he could make the horrific world described above be the kind of world we should all aspire to create, simply by declaring that it is. Could he? Whether or not God would make such a declaration, my question is: could he?

 

[jasoncran]

This may be surprising, but even though I am an atheist, I disagree with those who espouse moral relativism, the idea that there are no absolute values of right and wrong in the universe. I, like Sam Harris, feel that there are objective moral values in this world, even though there is no god. I would like to state plainly to the Christians of this forum that if you disagree with those who support moral relativism, your objections are entirely legitimate, even from a secular standpoint. There are indeed objective moral values, and not all societies are created ethically equal.

But how, without God, can there be objective moral values?

Well, actually it's quite simple, once we define morality. What do we hope to achieve by being moral? Why is it undesirable to be immoral? Why does the golden rule make so much sense?

The answer is that morality is the endeavor to minimize suffering and maximize pleasure.

Let me demonstrate by giving an example used by Sam Harris. Imagine a world where every single sentient being spends their entire existence in a state of incomparable agony, and this level agony is kept up for as long as possible, and every sentient creature dies the instant before this level of pain must be lessened, if it must be.

This, of course, would be the absolute worst world possible, and everything else is better. Everything else. Do you know anybody who would claim that there might be something worse than that, or that this might actually be good for us?

By accepting that point, that the above world is the worst world possible, and that everything else is better, you have accepted that there are indeed objective moral values, in that it is possible to say that one society is objectively worse or better than another in terms of its approach to the well-being of living creatures.

So yes, moral relativism is false, and the faithful are completely right to say so.

However, these moral truths are also secular, and independant of religion.

Why? Well, if God were the creator of objective moral values, then he could make the horrific world described above be the kind of world we should all aspire to create, simply by declaring that it is. Could he? Whether or not God would make such a declaration, my question is: could he?

the problem with that is what if men being in err make a rule that is later well wrong? that means that the truth or set of codes isnt so eternal and also subject to men's whim.

 

[SDJonathan]

That's not my point. My point is that, if God said that you have a moral duty to rape, torture, and act with the sole intention of causing as much pain as you possibly can, would those acts become moral? The idea of objective moral values coming from God, as I understand it, can mean two things:

1: God determines what is good, and things are good because he says they are.

2: There are objective moral values on how to behave, and while God did not create them and cannot control them, he still knows them perfectly thanks to his omniscience, and is the only person who can.

Which one do christians profess, or is it another that I am not aware of?

 

[jasoncran]

That's not my point. My point is that, if God said that you have a moral duty to rape, torture, and act with the sole intention of causing as much pain as you possibly can, would those acts become moral? The idea of objective moral values coming from God, as I understand it, can mean two things:

1: God determines what is good, and and things are good because he says they are.

2: There are objective moral values on how to behave, and while God did not create them and cannot control them, he still knows them perfectly thanks to his omniscience, and is the only person who can.

Which one do christians profess, or is it another that I am not aware of?

first God never said to rape and torture and wouldnt. all of those cases in the bible are in a context of evil.

both but men cant do that since if men define what is god you wont get a clear unfying definition of what is right and wrong.

see the myriad of cultures where women can be raped and its legal or the sharia laws of muslims.

when men say those are wrong . who or what gives them that authority to say that they are wrong since theres no creator who by nature instilled in us to know what is right and wrong(that really occured when adam ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree)

men do evil and somehow then know its evil. the japanese raped the chinese women and killed them and justified by thinking that those girls werent human. interesting so if they thought they were on equal footing then they wouldnt have done it.

 

[SDJonathan]

first God never said to rape and torture and wouldnt. all of those cases in the bible are in a context of evil.

I would never say something so offensive. I'm not saying he DID. But if god creates and determines what is good, wouldn't he be able to? And then wouldn't it cease to be immoral, because it's the will of God?

 

[Drew]

That's not my point. My point is that, if God said that you have a moral duty to rape, torture, and act with the sole intention of causing as much pain as you possibly can, would those acts become moral? The idea of objective moral values coming from God, as I understand it, can mean two things:

1: God determines what is good, and things are good because he says they are.

2: There are objective moral values on how to behave, and while God did not create them and cannot control them, he still knows them perfectly thanks to his omniscience, and is the only person who can.

Which one do christians profess, or is it another that I am not aware of?

Hello SDJ:

I am a Christian and I generally embrace position number 2.

 

[SDJonathan]

Hello SDJ:

I am a Christian and I generally embrace position number 2.

Thanks for letting me know! Does his position of authority on morality differ in any sense from his position of authority on science? Many cultures have learned quite a bit about the workings of the universe without the guidance of the God of the bible, so do you agree that cultures without God can still have at least some grasp of the objective moral values governing the universe?

 

[jasoncran]

I would never say something so offensive. I'm not saying he DID. But if god creates and determines what is good, wouldn't he be able to? And then wouldn't it cease to be immoral, because it's the will of God?

but that isnt the christian God as he clearly states he cant do evil and he defined it in the ten commandments and other areas of the bible.

if God does evil that makes him a liar. for instance if he says this in the bible.

behold i lie not neither is there a shadow of turning in my eyes. yet does just that then he just lied. and cant judge men as you have just stated.


God can repent of the jusdgments as men actions in repent cause him to say ok no need to judge them they have repented that isnt a definition of what is moral there but rather a judgment of what men do and a reaction to when they repent.

 

[SDJonathan]

but that isnt the christian God as he clearly states he cant do evil and he defined it in the ten commandments and other areas of the bible.

if God does evil that makes him a liar. for instance if he says this in the bible.

behold i lie not neither is there a shadow of turning in my eyes. yet does just that then he just lied. and cant judge men as you have just stated.


God can repent of the jusdgments as men actions in repent cause him to say ok no need to judge them they have repented that isnt a definition of what is moral there but rather a judgment of what men do and a reaction to when they repent.

When you say God can do no evil, do you mean that nothing God does can be evil, or do you mean that there are certain things that, because they are evil, God cannot do?

 

[Drew]

Thanks for letting me know! Does his position of authority on morality differ in any sense from his position of authority on science? Many cultures have learned quite a bit about the workings of the universe without the guidance of the God of the bible, so do you agree that cultures without God can still have at least some grasp of the objective moral values governing the universe?

Sure.

 

[SDJonathan]

Sure.

So you do not agree with the claim made by some Christians that without god there is no basis for objective moral values?

Oh, and no, I'm not going anywhere with that question, I'm just curious.

 

[jasoncran]

When you say God can do no evil, do you mean that nothing God does can be evil, or do you mean that there are certain things that, because they are evil, God cannot do?

drew is verfying that verse that is stated in romans that God wrote his laws on the hearts of men.

that means we all know what is right or wrong.

and God cant do evil since he defined what evil is and wont do evil. and his judgments cant be evil though the kjv calls some of his judgments evil. since he used a harsh heathen nation to judge isreal and judah.
what really happen there is he allowed those empires(babylon and assyria) to rise and gain strength and to come forth and take judah and isreal and didnt stop them. thus man did the evil not him.

he removes his hedge from isreal and judah and men who already hated the two kingdoms performed those evil acts.

and later God judged them for that as he said he would.

 

[SDJonathan]

drew is verfying that verse that is stated in romans that God wrote his laws on the hearts of men.

that means we all know what is right or wrong.

and God cant do evil since he defined what evil is and wont do evil. and his judgments cant be evil though the kjv calls some of his judgments evil. since he used a harsh heathen nation to judge isreal and judah.
what really happen there is he allowed those empires(babylon and assyria) to rise and gain strength and to come forth and take judah and isreal and didnt stop them. thus man did the evil not him.

he removes his hedge from isreal and judah and men who already hated the two kingdoms performed those evil acts.

and later God judged them for that as he said he would.

Just to make sure, I'll listen to what you have to say, but I'd like a straight answer to my question:

when you say god can do no evil, do you mean that:

A: Nothing God does can be considered evil,
or
B: There are certain acts that, because they are evil, God cannot do.

Or is it a third one? I'd just like a straight answer, because your messages are a little hard to understand, since they lack punctuation.

 

[Drew]

So you do not agree with the claim made by some Christians that without god there is no basis for objective moral values?

Right - I do not agree with the proposition that "without god", there is no basis for objective moral values.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

This may be surprising, but even though I am an atheist, I disagree with those who espouse moral relativism, the idea that there are no absolute values of right and wrong in the universe. I, like Sam Harris, feel that there are objective moral values in this world, even though there is no god. I would like to state plainly to the Christians of this forum that if you disagree with those who support moral relativism, your objections are entirely legitimate, even from a secular standpoint. There are indeed objective moral values, and not all societies are created ethically equal.

But how, without God, can there be objective moral values?

Well, actually it's quite simple, once we define morality. What do we hope to achieve by being moral? Why is it undesirable to be immoral? Why does the golden rule make so much sense?

The answer is that morality is the endeavor to minimize suffering and maximize pleasure.

Let me demonstrate by giving an example used by Sam Harris. Imagine a world where every single sentient being spends their entire existence in a state of incomparable agony. They are made to suffer as much as possible, for as long as possible.

This, of course, would be the absolute worst world possible, and everything else is better. Everything else. Do you know anybody who would claim that there might be something worse than that, or that this might actually be good for us?

By accepting that point, that the above world is the worst world possible, and that everything else is better, you have accepted that there are indeed objective moral values, in that it is possible to say that one society is objectively worse or better than another in terms of its approach to the well-being of living creatures.

So yes, moral relativism is false, and the faithful are completely right to say so.

However, these moral truths are also secular, and independant of religion.

Why? Well, if God were the creator of objective moral values, then he could make the horrific world described above be the kind of world we should all aspire to create, simply by declaring that it is. Could he? Whether or not God would make such a declaration, my question is: could he?

I am not so sure Sam Harris is a moral universalist. You are creating a subjective definition of good and evil based upon humanistic principles. Morality is a function of language. Good and evil merely reflect what the speaker approves or disapproves of.

 

[Drew]

drew is verfying that verse that is stated in romans that God wrote his laws on the hearts of men.

No I am not saying this.

You refer to a text in Romans 2. I do not believe that the text in question has anything to do with God "writing his laws" on the hearts of all men.

I believe that the text in question is desrcribing what happens to Gentile believers.

Having said this, I still agree that mankind in general can have a general sense of morality "without god".

 

[SDJonathan]

I am not so sure Sam Harris is a moral universalist. You are creating a subjective definition of good and evil based upon humanistic principles. Morality is a function of language. Good and evil merely reflect what the speaker approves or disapproves of.

But would anybody deny that the hypothetical world I described above (and that Sam Harris came up with, as far as I know) would be the worst world possible, and that everything else is better?

 

[jasoncran]

No I am not saying this.

You refer to a text in Romans 2. I do not believe that the text in question has anything to do with God "writing his laws" on the hearts of all men.

I believe that the text in question is desrcribing what happens to Gentile believers.

well drew outside of the less then 5% population that is jewish and even then fact the one doesnt know the tribe and only the mother counts as passing on the jewish traits reduces the number. and no if that was the case drew the bible reading wouldnt be needed for the gentile no would it since he wrote it there already.
romans 2:14 is right after paul is talking about the law judging men in verse 13 and then makes that statement about how the gentiles are a law unto themselves and in 11 he talks about God judges with no respect to persons and uses the law as a guide.

he then states in 12 and 13 those that do the law shall be justified and those who know and dont will be condemned.

 

[Ashua]

I am a big believer in the concept of moral relativism --or rather I would be if I did not know of God. Aside from a legitimate moral arbiter --legitimate by virtue of authorship --then there is no moral authority to determine what is right or wrong. God is the moral arbiter. Aside from him, moral dictation is without leverage.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

But would anybody deny that the hypothetical world I described above (and that Sam Harris came up with, as far as I know) would be the worst world possible, and that everything else is better?

A rapist might.

I am a big believer in the concept of moral relativism --or rather I would be if I did not know of God. Aside from a legitimate moral arbiter --legitimate by virtue of authorship --then there is no moral authority to determine what is right or wrong. God is the moral arbiter. Aside from him, moral dictation is without leverage.

Jean-Paul Sartre said it best: "Existentialism is not atheist in the sense that it would exhaust itself in demonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares, rather, that even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view. Not that we believe God does exist, but we think that the real problem is not that of His existence; what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God. In this sense existentialism is optimistic."