Comments on: Non-Theistic Objective Morality

By: Justin G

Justin G — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:49:00 +0000

The description of objective morality seems incomplete without God. This is because unlike the laws of physics, we’re not bound to obey an objective morality like we are the law of gravity. If there are no ultimate consequences for violating non-theistic objective morality, then stating that something is objectively wrong makes no sense. I think Kant supported this view from a practical standpoint. The only practical way that an objective morality can exist is if justice is included – an ultimate consequence for the sumation of one’s actions in this life (seeing as how there may not be any justice to be found for many in this life).

Without justice, which now seems to require an afterlife for many, and without a system to mete out this justice, there simply cannot be an objective morality. You can scream all you like that Stalin is morally “wrong” and without justice, it’s just your subjective opinion. You may as well just state “I disapprove of Stalin’s actions”.

Further, if morality is objective, then it is necessarily existent prior to man, it is necessarily unchanging, and it necessarily has to have a source that is personal. Morality only applies to very high life forms. We don’t say that a bull is wrong when it “rapes” a cow. Why? Because cows, birds, fishes, and rocks aren’t capable of contemplating consent. Nor do cows get upset if bulls have multiple partners. The source of morality would have to be something loosely akin to a higher intelligence. We don’t accuse a rock of murder if it falls and kills someone. The materialistic worldview simply cannot put forth an objective morality that ultimately holds any meaning.

By: c f

c f — Thu, 27 May 2010 00:09:16 +0000

mitch - how do you respond to the Christian claim that suffering is morally good?
you say 'pain is somehow ethically bad' , but it seems that the only way one can accept your statement is by a pure act of faith of a much greater magnitude than that required of Christians when they accept the 'suffering servant' as an embodiment of the entity which created the universe.

It is at least possible to make a reasoned argument for Christian faith, most individuals can given an accounting from both objective science and personal experience for why they believe.

What you are asking is for people to accept a statement 'pain is bad' with much greater faith than is necessary to believe in God, because the is neither scientific data or personal experience to validate such a claim.

I would suggest that the opposite is even true. From a scientific perspective pain is at worse neutral and probably a useful survival mechanism.

I have yet to meet a woman who believed the pain she suffered when bearing her child was not 'the good type' of pain. A sensation that was 'worth it'.

If by bad you mean 'pain hurts' I can see how that as self evident , and also self evident is that all organisms avoid being hurt when it servers there survival. Equally objectively provable is that many organisms have instincts and reflexes that overcome the natural predilection to avoid being hurt because a greater survival need ( aka procreation , pack instinct, etc. is of greater use then the damage inflicted to the individual organism.)

Still that seems like a HUGE leap to suggest that the pain of a jelly fish is someone a moral evil?

By: cf

cf — Wed, 26 May 2010 23:44:00 +0000

pain is intrinsically bad, is perhaps a poor example? Are there not many circumstance in which pain is:
a) necessary for the well being of my self or others ( surgery , the pain of self denial?)
b) good in that by choosing pain over pleasure I am given the importunity to do greater good then the opposite choice? Being killed to defend some just cause would be an example.

By: c f

c f — Wed, 26 May 2010 19:09:16 +0000

By: cf

cf — Wed, 26 May 2010 18:44:00 +0000

By: C.L. Bolt

C.L. Bolt — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:33:31 +0000

The badness of pain is axiomatic, existence is axiomatic, God is axiomatic, logic is axiomatic, math is axiomatic…

I am starting to smell something everywhere I go. ;)

By: C.L. Bolt

C.L. Bolt — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:33:00 +0000

The badness of pain is axiomatic, existence is axiomatic, God is axiomatic, logic is axiomatic, math is axiomatic…

I am starting to smell something everywhere I go. ;)

By: MitchLeBlanc

MitchLeBlanc — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:52:27 +0000

Do you disagree? You're committed to at least three of these claims, are you not?

By: MitchLeBlanc

MitchLeBlanc — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:52:00 +0000

Do you disagree? You're committed to at least three of these claims, are you not?

By: MitchLeBlanc

MitchLeBlanc — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:58:56 +0000

I did make a mistake in responding. 'Pain is intrinsically bad' is an ethical axiom that grounds the moral truth of, say, torturing Bob for fun is wrong. It wouldn't entail that one is morally culpable for the experience of pain, rather since we're speaking of morality it seems clear to me that we are talking about the 'action' while taking into consideration the issues of moral agency. We need to differentiate between the state of 'being' and the state of 'causing' since in matters of moral agency, the 'causing' is the one that applies.

In response to your second question, I'd like to quote T.J Mawson from 'The Euthyphro Dilemma' in Think: Winter 2008 p.27:

"Wherever there is agonizing pain, whether in people or animals, it cannot – of logical necessity – be anything other than
bad. We wouldn’t call it ‘agonizing pain’ if it wasn’t bad."

The intrinsic badness of pain is contained within the concept of pain. If the ethical truth were explained by anything other, it could not be an axiom.