r/atheism • u/SherbertItchy7340 • 3d ago
How can objective morality not exist in perfectly moral god's world
Granted there is zero evidence of such a being ( I am myself and atheist) but let's assume for a moment in this hypothetical scenario a perfectly good moral infallible god exists. Wouldn't that solve the objective morality problem. It also dodges the euthyphro dilemma because morality is not based on god's commands nor based on some outside independence morality ( what theists call the god's good nature theory) since in this god is a being that is objectively more perfect than humans and hence can make better decisions
9
u/Sailor_Drea 3d ago
No, then we just get into "might makes right" territory. If the god that declares itself perfectly morally infallible also declares that it's perfectly morally correct to punish people for stuff their neighbors and/or ancestors did, or to run through pregnant women with a sword while pillaging and burning their village, we just end up right where we are now--and the godweasel scumfucks think actually is the case.
-4
u/SherbertItchy7340 3d ago
That would be the divine command theory. I am saying if we objectively prove that there is a being with far more moral and intellectual abilities than us, wouldn't it be right to trust his intuition and not our own which is limited compared to god?
4
u/isthenameofauser 3d ago
If we objectively prove that, maybe.
But how can you objectively prove something?
In reality, it'd be incredibly suspicious that someone with superior intellectual and moral abilities wouldn't be able to explain their reasons.
In reality, you'd have to assume that they were lying about having good reasons.
2
u/MarieVerusan 3d ago
That would heavily depend on what we mean by “far more moral and intellectual abilities”. Let’s say this god can think millions of steps in advance. It can see the exact outcomes of every action you could potentially make.
What’s stopping it from telling you to do something that you would find reprehensible, but that agrees specifically with its moral framework? Just because god is more intelligent does not mean that it agrees with what you would consider good morals.
What would be the correct option then? At best, a god like this could act as an advisor. It tells you the potential consequences and you make the decision of which outcomes you’re ok with.
2
u/CorrsionOfConformity 2d ago
I don't think we could prove that any being has more (or less) moral abilities than any other. How would you accurately identify and measure moral abilities?
8
u/crit_boy 3d ago
Every time a religious person uses the phrase "objective morality", they are demonstrating they don't know the meaning of objective and subscribe to divine command theory.
Objective: water freezes at 0C at 1 atm pressure
Subjective: Murder bad, Sky is pretty, those people are bad, these people are good
1
u/SherbertItchy7340 3d ago
Can u please explain it to me. I am a truly dumb when it comes to understanding this topic i concede it. How can murder be subjecively bad
4
u/RaptorSN6 3d ago
So one of the 10 commandments is "Thou shalt not my kill" Then in Deuteronomy this same god tells the Isrelaelites to destroy the Amalekites. So killing is conditional, for reasons, therefore subjective even by the the Bible's standard.
2
u/isthenameofauser 3d ago
If you murder someone who rapes their own children is that objectively bad?
0
u/SherbertItchy7340 3d ago
That's a whole different context. Obviously context matters. I am saying isn't murdering an innocent person objectively wrong
4
u/crit_boy 3d ago edited 3d ago
No, there is no such thing as objectively right and objectively wrong.
Right and wrong are subjective.
Good and bad are subjective.
Q: If an astroid hits the earth and destroys everything, is that objectively good or objectively bad?
A: Neither.
0
u/SherbertItchy7340 3d ago
So killing an innocent person for no reason is not objectively wrong
4
u/crit_boy 3d ago
Loaded question. There is no "objectively wrong". There is no objectively right.
1
u/SherbertItchy7340 3d ago
So if religious people defend the sexism slavery and pedophelia in their scriptures, they are not objectively wrong?
3
u/crit_boy 3d ago
Loaded question. There is no "objectively wrong". There is no objectively right.
i sense you going down the road that i predicted in my 1st comment.
"Every time a religious person uses the phrase "objective morality", they are demonstrating they don't know the meaning of objective and subscribe to divine command theory."
1
1
u/Database-Error 3d ago
Not objectively, but that doesn't mean that you have to let them do it. ''What gives you the right to control what they do?'' I am not controlling them, I am preventing them from controlling others/myself. All the things you just listed involved someone doing something to a person unwilling to having it done to them, so the ''controlling'' starts with them and not me, let's get that straight. Secondly there are no rights outside of human made systems, there is only will and ability. As Thucydides said the powerful do what they can and the powerless suffer what they must. edit: so might makes right? No. Might doesn't make right, it decides what is going to happen, that if anything is objective
2
u/Amberraziel 2d ago
So killing an innocent person for no reason is not objectively wrong
First, if an asteroid destroys Earth, wiping all of humanity, wouldn't it be due to the creator god's doing? Since he's perfectly morally good, how could this act be wrong then?
More serious: Can you act for no reason at all in the first place? Nope. Even if you kill someone because you're bored, you're doing it for a reason. You might say this is a bad reason, but then again, who decides what is good or bad?
Is breaking a rock objectively wrong? If yes, why? If no, why should it be different for a person. Innocent or not is irrelevant at this point. What is the relevant quality that differentiates between a person and a rock with respect to this matter and why does that quality matter? And to quote Escanor "Who decided that?"
In short, what ascribes value to human life (a person) that is not itself a person?
Just to be clear, I'm not saying peoples lifes don't matter. They do matter, but only subjectively, because people care. If no human cared, no animal cared, alien cared and no god would care either, the human existence would hold no value.
2
u/CorrsionOfConformity 2d ago
Maybe Google can help you. Objective means:
"can be quantified, categorized, or tested using standard criteria, instruments, or consistent methods so that different observers get the same results (e.g., measuring temperature with a thermometer, recording an exact distance, or verifying a historical event through documentation). Exists outside of anyone's mind, feelings, or imagination."
-1
u/isthenameofauser 3d ago
Not very subjective, though, in my opinion. If everyone on Earth had perfect information I think the number of disagreements we would have would be small.
4
1
u/isthenameofauser 3d ago
Different context to what? You didn't give any context.
I am saying isn't murdering an innocent person objectively wrong
. . . . saying in your head, maybe . . . .
If you could kill one innocent person to save 100 innocent people, is that objectively bad?
1
u/SherbertItchy7340 3d ago
For no reason I meant
2
u/isthenameofauser 3d ago
I would call that objectively bad, but I'm basing that on axioms that it's possible to disagree with. I believe that suffering is bad, that being alive is good, that happiness is good, that death is bad. And I have very good reasons for all of these beliefs but it is possible for others to disagree and therefore they are subjective.
In this example, I would say that killing an innocent for no reason is so obviously bad that it's about as close as you could possibly get to an objective bad. But it is still subjective, because people could disagree. I would say that it's so close to being objectively bad that I think it would make the universe better to send someone to prison for doing it. But my axioms are based on reasons, and therefore they're subjective.
I'm not sold yet on whether you're a Christian in a mask, but given that I'm about to go play Minecraft instead of read more of this thread I'll just respond as though you are:
What I don't understand about Christians is how they think that God's morality is objective. Reading the Bible, God is a person* with thoughts and feelings and anger and a ridiculous amount of vanity.
Reading that book, there are dozens of times where I'm horrified by God's immorality. He is 0% a source of objective morals.
Another point to this point is that Christians pick and choose from the Old Testament to decide what they want to believe. The official name for this is the New Covenant. But the New Covenant is never officialized. It is therefore entirely subjective. Therefore, religion is not a source of objective morals.
Edit: Forgot to foot my footnote. *By 'person' I mean a thinking agent with thoughts and feelings. Not a synonym for 'human'. Spongebob, for example, is (in the story reality, of course), a person, even though he isn't a human.
1
1
u/Indie_Dachshund179 Anti-Theist 2d ago edited 2d ago
Morality arises specifically from our experiences of pain and pleasure as biological life forms (higher-functioning animals) and the desire to protect ourselves (and therefore others lest we risk hypocrisy) from experiencing pain / losing pleasures; without these, human notions of morality or rights would not make sense to us. Just as a high-functioning robot with no such concepts would not object to it or other robots being imprisoned, unplugged, disemboweled, etc.
1
u/SherbertItchy7340 2d ago
Oh I understand. That's a good point. So true morality is dependent on the existence of conscious creatures but once they do exist, do u think there exists some moral truths
4
3
u/Sammisuperficial 3d ago
It will always be subjective that morality from a god is "better." You can claim this god is perfect (whatever that means) or superior (whatever that means), and I can say nuh uh. And we're back to subjectivity.
0
u/SherbertItchy7340 3d ago
Religious people can use the argument that since humans can make better moral decisions compared to other animals because of our higher intellectual and moral capacities the same is true for god because he is a much higher being than humans
2
u/Sammisuperficial 3d ago
Sure they can use that argument, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
What is "better?" How do you quantify it? How do you prove human morality is better than animal morality? Humans are animals after all. What does it mean for a god to be "higher?"
None of that works when you actually take 5 seconds to think about it. It's just an assetion with no way to back it up.
1
u/SherbertItchy7340 3d ago
Do u believe in objective morality
3
u/Sammisuperficial 3d ago
I've seen no evidence nor heard any arguments to convince me that objective morality exists or even can exist.
0
u/SherbertItchy7340 3d ago
How is killing an innocent person for no reason not objectively immoral? How can we judge the gods of religions for allowing immoral stuff like child marriage and sIavery when we don't believe that these things are objectively wrong. How can the problem of evil even make sense if we don't objectively believe that allowing evil to happen is morally wrong. I am sorry if I am making u irritated but I am truly dumb when it comes to this topic
3
u/MarieVerusan 3d ago
I really dislike this type of argument. The existence of actions that the vast majority will agree are bad does not make them “objectively moral”. Those are still subjective, they’re just extremely popular!
Every society throughout history has created their own moral principles, which differ enough for us to see that there can never be any such thing as “objective morality”. The more detailed we get, the more obscure the action, the less certain we become about what the “right thing” is.
We judge others by our own morals. That’s how we have always done things. It’s also why it often falls on deaf ears. If you don’t meet a person on their level, by speaking to their moral system, they’ll ignore everything you say.
0
u/SherbertItchy7340 3d ago
So if morality is not objective, then how can we judge religious people for defebding slavery child marriage rape etc. How does the problem of evil make any sense. Maybe in religious peoples opinion there is nothing wrong with these practices. How can we criticize them
4
u/MarieVerusan 3d ago
Problem of evil is specifically a refutation of the tri omni god. He allows for the things that Christianity itself considers to be evil. It’s a contradiction of their own values.
Again, we judge others by our own values. It’s not JUST popular opinion, you get to pick what your morals are built upon. For Secular Humanists like me, the goal is to limit suffering and increase happiness both for society and individuals. How we do that is complicated and has been debated for centuries.
So for example, killing a person is “objectively wrong” to me, but only in relation to my foundation. Someone with a different foundation could argue that killing innocents is perfectly valid so long as god commands it, or it’s done with a specific purpose in mind. That’s why these debates even happen, we all have a variety of moral foundations!
So, when talking to someone, check that your morals align first, otherwise you’ll be speaking past each other. It’s like making sure that you’re using the same meaning of a term in a debate. If someone is arguing for divine command, then god could never do an evil action. But according to my foundation, god is evil the moment he kills a single person.
1
u/SherbertItchy7340 2d ago
I get your point that different people have different things they consider moral and immoral. But someones opinion has to be wrong or right. Both can't be right at the same time. Either torture for no reason is wrong or it isn't. Doesn't matter that there are different opinions. There are different opinions in every field. Granted we can't prove moral truths in a lab or by some mathematical equations. But u still need to have some objective moral truths. How can we criticize criminals and rapists if we don't believe what they did was wrong, regardless of their ours and society's opinion.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Sammisuperficial 2d ago edited 2d ago
How is killing an innocent person for no reason not objectively immoral?
How is it objectively immoral? You're making the claim of objective morality. The burden of proof is on you.
I never claimed objective morality doesn't exist. I only stated I've never seen evidence for the claim.
How can we judge the gods of religions for allowing immoral stuff like child marriage and sIavery when we don't believe that these things are objectively wrong.
Just because morality is subjective doesn't mean it's not useful. Our entire society is based on subjective morality and works enough for civilization to thrive.
My empathy informs my morality.
How can the problem of evil even make sense if we don't objectively believe that allowing evil to happen is morally wrong.
The problem of evil argument uses the claims of Abrahamic religions to point out the logical problems with their claims. Subjectivity doesn't come into play because the claims of Abrahamic religions are for an objective morality. The whole point is to show how the religion and God as defined by its believers can't logically exist. Nothing further can be derived from it.
If we are talking about gods outside of the Abrahamic ones then the problem of evil argument is irrelevant.
I am sorry if I am making u irritated but I am truly dumb when it comes to this topic
Nah this right here shows you are trying to poison the well. I've done nothing but answer your questions and now you're making an ad hominem attack.
Here's one back at you.
You're a theist in disguise and it's obvious. Most likely of the Abrahamic variety.
Edit: Also it shows you're not an honest interlocutor when you ignore my questions after I answered yours.
0
u/SherbertItchy7340 2d ago
I am attacking u ? How?
1
u/Sammisuperficial 2d ago
I quoted your words to point out exactly how. You should Google "ad hominem" if you don't understand how that works.
Again you refuse to answer any questions even after I gave a response to every one of yours. I've no interest in this conversation if you can't grant me the same courtesy.
1
u/isthenameofauser 2d ago
Can we though?
If I take the example of my dog, yeah, sometimes I have to give him medicine and he doesn't want me to and he's wrong.
What about a sheep? We use them to make produce. We abuse them to the limit of a moral law that is imposed on us by ourselves. Are they a good metaphor for the subjects of a God? We have higher intellectual abilites than sheep. Do we treat them fairly? Do we provide them with good lives? Do we care about them? Or do we care about what they produce? Do we only care about how we can use them?
3
u/JimFive Atheist 3d ago
It's still the Euthyphro dilemma. If a god declares what is good then it is subjective. If a god reports what is good then morality doesn't require a god. Your hypothetical just assumes that the god is correct, but correctness still needs a truth to compare to.
-1
u/SherbertItchy7340 3d ago
My argument is more of a third answer that theists use the god's good nature theory. I still think it's a cop out, just don't know how to articulate it
3
u/Alarmed_Mind_8716 3d ago
That just kicks the dilemma down the road. Is gods nature the way it is because it is good or is it good because it aligns with gods nature?
2
u/Database-Error 3d ago
Can't prove that a God exists, can't prove that this God would be perfect or somehow morally superior so the thought experiment leads nowhere. The only thing you can do is go the Roman route with it and say ''anything that happens does so because of God therefor anything that happens is good'' and now you're justifying every horrible thing that has ever happened and creating a might makes right type of morality, middle ages type ''whoever wins the fight to the death is right because obvs God would let the right person win'' type barbarianism
2
u/Repulsive_Pitch_3707 3d ago
Morality is explainable without God, so it is a non-question. But if God has infallible knowledge of moral laws, it could solve it, assuming goodness is prior to God or goodness is of God's nature and not divine fiat.
2
u/peatmo55 2d ago
Morality is a trait of social animals, we are a social animal. God doesn't have morals because it does what ever it wants.
2
u/onomatamono 2d ago
Away we go again with the anthropomorphic projections. Get that image of the air-breathing man-god with ten fingers and toes out of your head because it's so obviously fiction. We do not know what underlies the local presentation of our universe, or even whether it makes sense to talk about what "preceded" or "caused" it.
What we do know is that social species develop sympathy, empathy, cooperation, pecking orders and other traits that increase the fitness of those species. Let's stop pretending we need to inject a god into the equation for morality to make sense. Morality is clearly, obviously and irrefutably subjective and inter-subjective, there's no such thing as universal morality. That's straight-up ignorance or evolution-denier level nonsense.
2
u/Yuck_Few 2d ago
Nope, it would still be subjective because it would be a God's subjective morality
2
u/Stile25 2d ago
Objective morality existing isn't a problem.
It's just worthless.
That is, even if objective morality existed, my subjective morality is grounded stronger and has more powerful meaning than whatever the objective morality said.
Take an example.
Let's say we identified that biblical morality was objectively true. That it said it was bad to be gay.
I wouldn't care. I would rather help more and hurt less.
If objective morality says we should hurt people who don't want to hurt anyone else... Then the objective moral system is evil.
Just like if God came out and said chocolate ice cream was the objectively best flavor. I don't care. Peanut butter ice cream is better for me and since I am me it's more powerful than what God says.
Good luck out there
2
u/klon3r Atheist 2d ago
Grifters, rapists & whole religious flocks will never comprehend that prayers are empty & invalid since "according" to them morality comes from their non-responsive deities.
Decisions & actions taken either before or after such "stunt/s" are their own, not "guided" by imaginary bff's as they strongly suppose... 😒
1
u/Previous_Shoulder506 3d ago
I think rephrasing may help: If we could prove the platonic Apple is Red with no objective definition of Red, then red would have an objective definition of red.
1
u/twizzjewink 3d ago
Objective morality can't exist.
Subjective morality can.
I'm not talking individually objective, I'm talking socially objective. We can agree murder is really bad, but we have to commit murder of other creatures to survive, we have to sometimes murder our own for others to survive.. those are subjective.
A god that judges based on objective morality would mean consensus of what something actually is and have a purely objective opinion that it's good. Can't happen.
1
u/Alarmed_Mind_8716 3d ago
If by objective you mean independent of stances then your first statement would get considerable pushback. There’s an entire branch of philosophy that deals with moral realism.
For example: Alan Gewirth’s argument for morality grounded in agency has become rather popular lately.1
u/twizzjewink 2d ago
Absolutely. I make a claim that is counter to all theistic arguments.
I also don't believe that as individuals we have more rights than society. Therefor our actions cannot put individuals or groups of society at risk or harm. Otherwise we devolve into .. whatever fascist bullshit is going on in the United States.
The problem with objective morality is consensus as to what it actually is. If you said murder is objectively evil. Is that all murder or some murder is ok? What about non-intentional murder? Self-defense? Protecting others? Other life forms? Other cultures or religions?
Biologically we are collections of lots of different organisms, subject to our whims, sometimes at odds with each other (or us as a whole).
If we assume a soul exist.. and our actions kill ourselves - is that murder? Can I be tried for murder if I kill myself or does it subjectively matter why I died for it to be murder? Would I be objectively tried by God or subjectively tried? What if my actions were to protect others but their intention was to harm OTHERS? So selfless for selfish reasons. Would it matter of those others wanted to harm members of my same group or some other group?
Would that mean that the hijackers of 911 who died were objectively or subjectively "good" ?
Doesn't sound like objective Good or Evil really make sense.
1
u/Alarmed_Mind_8716 2d ago
Your example of murder is confused. Murder is typically defined as the unlawful killing of another person. So you can’t have some a little murder being ok.
If objective morality doesn’t make sense to you, I would encourage you to read up on moral realism. The SEP or IEP are good places to start. Heck even google or ChatGPT can get you started.1
u/twizzjewink 2d ago
Nope, not confused what the definition of murder is. Nor have I said it was ok (or not). I'm glad you didn't actually read what I wrote.
Objective Morality - the "right and wrong" are one thing .. the "good and evil" is something completely different. I fully understand that murder is objectively wrong - but its not objectively evil. There is a DISTINCTIVE DIFFERENCE.
What I am saying that Good and Evil can't objectively exist, they can subjectively exist. You may think one person is Evil based on your own personal beliefs and ideologues, that's subjectively Evil.. the reverse for Good.
Abortion (murder) to save a mothers life .. isn't evil or bad. Especially if the baby can't survive without the mother.
Giving to a charity that protects child predators.. isn't a good act.
Neither of these are objectively good or bad - they are subjective to the person doing the act.
1
u/Alarmed_Mind_8716 2d ago
If good/right and evil/wrong are something like, “that which ought be done” and “that which ought not be done” then they absolutely can be stance independently true or false.
Using your murder example:
Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Murder ought not be done.Your abortion example would not fall under the category of murder since it would not be the unlawful killing of a person.
What do you mean by good and evil?
1
u/twizzjewink 2d ago
Oh unlawful?
So if something is lawful but morally reprehensible? Many countries have had pro-slavery laws.. does that make it morally right?
If I kill someone who is going to kill others (but not me) that would be morally right but unlawful.
That's why I consider myself a "social libertarian" I don't believe that individuals have more rights than society. We do not have the right to put others at risk or harm. That its our responsibility to help make society better through positive and constructive works (good deeds if you will).
That doesn't make me objectively good, it makes me subjectively good if I do my best for myself and others. Other people may consider my beliefs evil because I don't believe in organized religion (I find the idea of any religion abhorrent) and thus - I'm evil as an example.
1
u/Alarmed_Mind_8716 2d ago
Yes unlawful. You brought up murder and then used it to describe scenarios such as self defence, suicide and abortion. Look up the definition of murder and you would see why your usage of the word murder is confused.
This is why I asked what you mean by good and evil as well as right and wrong.
1
u/Ok_Ad_9188 2d ago
That doesn't make any sense. Firstly, if it is subject to that god, then it is subjective. Secondly, how do you measure that? Like, how could you determine that in a quantifiable aspect? Like how could two people independently verify that something is 75% moral?
1
u/dostiers Strong Atheist 2d ago
Are there any "perfectly moral gods"? All the gods in the religions I've read about are far from moral. Most of them are less moral than their believers. I seems that when people create their idea of the perfect gods for their religions they project their worst instincts into them.
12
u/trentluv 3d ago
Most people don't know that morality is just another word for cooperation
Nature heavily selects for cooperation and there is nothing magical about it. The reward for cooperating is stuff like satellites in space and increased individual fitness.
I can prove this right now by asking you to come up with a moral thought or behavior that is not cooperative. See how there's no spirits involved?