How to Have Objective Moral Value without God

[@MaverickChristian]

2:50 to 4:00 - Hmm, not sure how that makes sense. Sounds more like cultural relativism. If two cultures have differing views on moral values and duties, which culture is right? Are they both right relative to their culture? If so, then it's not objective morality. 4:00 to 4:43 - Well, sort of. But you also have to remember that different individuals have different viewpoints of what is good and bad. How I originally interpreted Craig here is that without God you'd have differing moral viewpoints among individuals but no objective moral standard. This by itself doesn't get you to ethical subjectivism in the absence of God. It's also compatible with moral error theory being more likely on atheism. Granted though, I'm speaking of how I interpreted Craig (viz., individually differing viewpoints etc.). He wasn't terribly rigorous and precise here. 4:46 to 5:25 - It's true that an an atheist could posit an objective reference point for morality. There's no logical contradiction between atheism and moral objectivism. Even so, I think Craig is right here: if atheism is true there is no objective reference point for morality. It may be _logically possible_ for objective morality to exist on atheism, but it doesn't strike me as likely (Craig, for example, has argued against moral Platonism). Heck, even a lot of atheists agree with Craig on this (at least if we're using "morality" in the ordinary sense of the term; I've seen some atheists redefine morality to get around this problem).

[@tomatopotato2881]

I can't speak on behalf of OP but if I may attempt to share my thoughts as an atheist who believes in an objective basis for morality (grounded in evolutionary species-level survival as the prerequisite root of our hierarchy of values -- also please forgive any ignorance on my part as a layman to philosophy): >> If two cultures have differing views on moral values and duties, which culture is right? The one that's better-adapted for long-term survival vs. the one that's more maladapted, just like a well-adapted species is superior according to evolutionary fitness than a maladapted species prone to extinction in a single generation. Granted I might not always be able to tell; I'm very fallible and have difficulty making accurate long-term predictions. My belief in objective morality does not come with the belief that I know what's right. It's just if I'm wrong (which I often could be), I have a criterion by which I would be objectively wrong. What I can say with a fairly high degree of confidence is that an uncooperative culture/society on the brink of chaos which makes enemies of the entire world and barely produces anything of use diminishes their odds of long-term survival over a cohesive, highly-cooperative society that forges strong alliances and produces things of immense value. If you and I are trapped on an island, then I consider it objectively inferior independent of our cultures/preferences if we behave in a maladapted way which minimizes our chances of survival. If we can put aside any cultural/personal differences (perhaps you can even teach me about your Christian religion and I can teach you my culture as a Japanese and we can find common ground) -- and work together in a way where we optimize our odds of survival better than as a team than if we worked alone -- then I would consider that the objectively superior (well-adapted) solution. I may even come to risk my life on your behalf, and hope you reciprocate. If we become as brothers watching each other's backs, your back becomes as valuable as mine to my survival and mine to you as yours. Evolutionary survival goes far beyond optimizing individual fitness. It can expand to families, communities, even the entire species. If I die on your behalf, then it is not contradictory to well-adapted behavior, and I hope some of my better ideas and thoughts I wish to pass on to love ones live on through you. And if you do so on my behalf, then I will be motivated to keep yours alive through me. >> [...] if atheism is true there is no objective reference point for morality [...] Survival always seemed to suffice to me as the objective goal, given by nature, that we all share in common. I envy theists for having a higher tier beyond that with God, but I suspect we share enough in common one tier below that in terms of mutual survival to find much more than subjective preferences and cultural ideas to measure what is more or less productive/counter-productive to our survival. After all, there is no value to any long-term goal of any sort whether it's to produce a harmonious society or fly rockets into outer space unless the people pursuing that goal live long enough to see them fulfilled -- or share their goals successfully enough for others to take their place. Any fruits yielded from a metaethical discussion among philosophers loses all value (at least to those of us trapped in this existence absent an afterlife) if they all jump off the nearest cliff immediately after. Please let me know if there's a problem with my thoughts on the subject. As said, I'm a layman to philosophy and borderline illiterate in that regard. I'm a STEM type and engineer by trade.

[@MaverickChristian]

​@@tomatopotato2881 Sometimes atheists and theists talk passed each other when it comes to morality. To explain what I (and theists, as well as the general population) mean by morality, note that morality has an "ought" component; e.g., an action is morally for someone only if they ought not do it. But we use words like "ought" and "should" in a couple different ways. One way is when the "ought" is purely descriptive, like when "If you want to do well in school, you ought to study" just means something like "As a matter of practical necessity, you need to study to do well in school." Here the "ought" is the same thing as something purely descriptive (in this case, "ought" expresses that a possible action is practically necessary to achieve some goal). The other way is when the "ought" prescribes in a way that is not purely descriptive; e.g., someone saying "You shouldn't torture" might be using this type of ought, and this it the type of ought that is used in morality, i.e., that type of ought that does _not_ have only descriptive qualities. Why is that important? Natural facts, like facts of physics and chemistry, are purely descriptive, whereas the moral ought is not. A moral "ought" property like moral wrongness is thus non-natural. Moral wrongness does not exist solely as part of the natural, physical world and is thus empirically undetectable. To illustrate what I mean by this, imagine a moral nihilist (who doesn't believe in moral wrongness) and a moral realist (who does believe in moral wrongness) both observe some jerk kick a dog just for fun. The dog whimpers in pain and runs a way. The moral nihilist and moral realist all agree on the same facts of psychology and physiology; e.g., the dog felt pain and suffered minor injury. The moral nihilist says, "I don't think moral wrongness is attached to that action." The moral realist says, "I think moral wrongness _is_ attached to that action." There is no _empirical_ way to determine who is right; both sides agree on the same empirically observable facts. In that sense, moral wrongness is empirically undetectable, which should be no surprise because it's not a natural, physical property. Many atheists agree that _this_ type of moral wrongness is unlikely given atheism. After all, why shouldn't the consistent atheist reject the existence of non-natural moral properties that cannot be empirically detected, if the atheist is to reject the existence of non-natural deities that have (allegedly) not been empirically detected? Given atheism, it seems more likely that people's belief in moral wrongness is a delusion brought about by evolution to get us behave in certain ways and help our species survive. Given atheism, objective moral wrongness probably doesn't exist. At this point the atheist might bite the bullet and deny that anything is morally wrong. But which is more plausible? That there's something morally wrong with torturing infants just for fun, or atheism? Some atheists are more willing to believe that nothing is morally wrong with torturing infants just for fun than they are willing to believe that atheism is false, but by my lights that's a level of irrationality akin to religious fanaticism. If I learned that my religion taught that there is nothing wrong with torturing infants just for fun, I'd abandon that religion. In my opinion, any belief system that says it's not morally wrong to torture infants just for fun is probably false.

[@MaverickChristian]

@@tomatopotato2881 Sometimes atheists and theists talk passed each other when it comes to morality. To explain what I (and theists, as well as the general population) mean by morality, note that morality has an "ought" component; e.g., an action is morally for someone only if they ought not do it. But we use words like "ought" and "should" in a couple different ways. One way is when the "ought" is purely descriptive, like when "If you want to do well in school, you ought to study" just means something like "As a matter of practical necessity, you need to study to do well in school." Here the "ought" is the same thing as something purely descriptive (in this case, "ought" expresses that a possible action is practically necessary to achieve some goal). The other way is when the "ought" prescribes in a way that is not purely descriptive; e.g., someone saying "You shouldn't torture" might be using this type of ought, and this it the type of ought that is used in morality, i.e., that type of ought that does not have only descriptive qualities. Why is that important? Natural facts, like facts of physics and chemistry, are purely descriptive, whereas the moral ought is not. A moral "ought" property like moral wrongness is thus non-natural. Moral wrongness does not exist solely as part of the natural, physical world and is thus empirically undetectable. To illustrate what I mean by this, imagine a moral nihilist (who doesn't believe in moral wrongness) and a moral realist (who does believe in moral wrongness) both observe some jerk kick a dog just for fun. The dog whimpers in pain and runs a way. The moral nihilist and moral realist all agree on the same facts of psychology and physiology; e.g., the dog felt pain and suffered minor injury. The moral nihilist says, "I don't think moral wrongness is attached to that action." The moral realist says, "I think moral wrongness is attached to that action." There is no empirical way to determine who is right; both sides agree on the same empirically observable facts. In that sense, moral wrongness is empirically undetectable, which should be no surprise because it's not a natural, physical property. Many atheists agree that this type of moral wrongness is unlikely given atheism. After all, why shouldn't the consistent atheist reject the existence of non-natural moral properties that cannot be empirically detected, if the atheist is to reject the existence of non-natural deities that have (allegedly) not been empirically detected? Given atheism, it seems more likely that people's belief in moral wrongness is a delusion brought about by evolution to get us behave in certain ways and help our species survive. Given atheism, objective moral wrongness probably doesn't exist.

[@esauponce9759]

If Theism is true, we still won't get moral realism. Moral realism just doesn't follow from Theism.

[@MaverickChristian]

@@esauponce9759 That depends on your theology. The standard conception of God is that he is perfectly morally good, and is presumably morally good independently of whether we think he is. So on this version of theism, God's existence entails objective morality. And of course some versions of theism entail objective moral obligations via God imposing those supremely authoritative obligations (where by "objective" I mean holding independently of human opinion).

[@EnglishMike]

I personally don't see how there can be an objective moral standard, God or no God, but even if there is, I would argue that without perfect knowledge, that objective standard is forever out of reach. One Christian will argue that accumulated wealth is God's reward for leading a moral and upstanding life, another will argue that accumulated wealth is a sure sign that you love money more than God. Two people can witness the exact same shooting, and one will argue it was murder, and the other will swear blind it was self defense. And, even if you stick to the Bible as your source for objective moral wisdom, no two Christians are going to interpret all the relevant passages the same, and their interpretations are often wildly different. I happened to mention the "turn the other cheek" passage -- the actual words of Jesus -- to a conservative Christian and their first impulse was to say "That doesn't mean you have to be a doormat!" indicating there was some context I was missing (though he never did get round to saying what that context was). In the end, interpretations of the moral standard will always be colored by personal biases and experience. Even if we can identify the source of objective morality, it will always remain inaccessible.

[@rauserbegins5850]

I really like something Noam Chomsky once said. He once observed (and I'm paraphrasing), "If I attribute my moral values to some divine creature who I define as 'the source of my moral values' then the moral values aren't any more well-grounded so it's a useless step."

[@trumpbellend6717]

Yep, theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄

[@colinpurssey9875]

Moral value inheres only in consciousness and is expressed uniquely through personal agency . The notion that it can have some transcendental platonic reality independently of those concomitant faculties is vacuous . God then , as the ground of being , is the source and very paradigm of morality .

[@esauponce9759]

Moral realism just doesn't follow from Theism (neither from non-Theism, for that matter). That's the main reason why this type of moral arguments fail. Moral realism is just not the correct meta-ethical view.

[@mesplin3]

Objectivity and subjectivity are confusing terms.

[@alexklassen5115]

Typically objective means that it is mind-independent and subjective means it is mind- dependent; however, it gets a little squishy when grounding objective morality in the mind of a God which i take Craig and others similar to him to be doing. Sometimes it's not quite clear what is even being said as Craig will say things like : objective morality is that which is in accord with God's nature which i find a little confusing

[@stormburn1]

It's confusing because theists confuse it by special pleading for God. By their usage of "subjective" in the context of morals, the metric system is subjective because the units and standard forces/phenomena which they measure are not grounded in God. By everyone else's usage of "subjective" (including the theist's in every other context), the metric system is an objective standard decided upon subjectively; meaning that while the exact definition of the standard was up to us, we can relate things to that standard and validate that relation independently of anyone's opinion.

[@harddrive9789]

But what is your response to criag's critique of atheistic moral platonism?

[@_JRA_]

This is the problem when analyzing a short video, and not texts. Furthermore, it does not explain where objective moral duties could come from, even if objective good exists.

[@byrondickens]

Didn't Kant already address this 239 years ago in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals? As someone who is supposedly trained in philosophy, surely WLC has run into Kant and his Categorical Imperative before.

[@skatter44]

The Categorical Imperative doesn't work. It has several fatal flaws.

[@byrondickens]

@skatter44 Such as? It works a hell of a lot better than the appeal to authority fallacy.

[@skatter44]

@@byrondickens Before I list out my issues with the C.I. let me first state what I think it is since Kant has two versions of the Categorical Imperative. Then, if you agree with my assessment of it, then I will list out the problems with it. Sound good? First, Kant says: "There is only one categorical imperative, and it is this. Act only according to that maxim, or principle, whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” For instance, if I lie, I can’t will that you lie to me. I lie only to gain an advantage over you. The same is true for any other “evil” deed. We do not will it be done to us. We do not will it to be a universal law. So, if we only did what we willed to be a universal law, if we only did what we willed all people to do, we would do only good and not evil. So, this one law is all that we need. It does not have to specify any content. It does not have to know human nature. It’s purely formal. The Law of Justice, of equality. It’s like mathematics; like an equal sign. It’s purely rational; purely scientific. All Good is equality. Doing what you will others to do. All evil is inequality. Kant gives us a simple, rational, almost mathematical ethics. The second version of the C.I.has some content to it. This one says something about human nature or what a human being is. He writes: “Every rational being exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be used by this or that will. Beings that are not rational beings have only a relative value as means and are called things. On the other hand, rational beings are called persons, in as much as their nature marks them out as ends in themselves; something which is not to be used merely as a means and which are objects of respect. Persons are not merely subjective ends whose existence has a value for us, but as objective ends, that is ends in themselves.” Kant continues: “The practical imperative will be the following: ‘Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means to an end.” These two formulations of the Categorical Imperative are widely recognized as a landmark in ethical thought; a basis for universal human rights and for a moral world order that transcends differences in religion, culture, history, ideology, race, or temperament. Thinkers as diverse as popes and atheists have praised it and used it. Three things Kant especially gives us. Moral seriousness, rationality, and human respect. His morality is not relative, subjective, utilitarian, pragmatic, negotiable, changeable, or hypothetical. The second formulation gives us humanism. A humanism that is acceptable to atheists and theists, Christians and Jews, liberals and conservatives.

[@skatter44]

@@byrondickens I answered earlier and the post has disappeared. I'll try again.

[@skatter44]

@@byrondickens I will first spell out what I think the C.I. is since Kant has two versions of it. That way I won't be accused of beating up a straw man. Let me know if you agree with the assessment and then I will offer my critiques. Sound good?

[@piesho]

Anything coming from God is, by definition, subjective. God is supposed to be a subject, not an object.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

No. This is a common mistake. Craig has answered it many times. In Q&A #385 on his website, Craig says: "Now comes the tricky part: if moral values are grounded in God, the objector says, then since God is a mind, they are not mind-independent. Granted, they are independent of human minds, but they are not independent of God’s mind. So theistic ethics is mind-dependent and therefore not objective. The problem with this objection is overkill. For on this view the distinction between mind-dependent and mind-independent realities collapses. Everything becomes mind-dependent. Even things like people, planets, and stars, which are paradigms of objective realities, become mind-dependent, since they, too, depend on God for their existence. But then the intuitive and helpful distinction between mind-dependent and mind-independent realities goes by the board. This is not a distinction we should give up. There is obviously a difference between the stuff of hallucinations, dreams, and fictions and stuff that was around before we arrived on the scene. Moreover, we can distinguish between idealistic views, like George Berkeley’s, which hold that the perceptible world exists only in God’s mind, rather like a dream, rather than as a spatio-temporal reality created and sustained in existence by God. On Berkeley’s view the world really is mind-dependent, in a way that it is not on classical theism. The sense in which the world is mind-dependent on classical theism is clearly not the same sense in which it is on Berkeley’s idealism. Similarly, there is clearly a difference between theistic ethical systems that are voluntaristic, like William Ockham’s, and those that are not, like Aquinas’. On Ockham’s view moral values do seem to be mind-dependent in a way they are not for Aquinas, namely, for Ockham God just made up the values that He wants to, whereas on Aquinas’ view moral values are grounded, not in God’s will, but in His nature. It would be grossly misleading to characterize both Aquinas’ and Ockham’s ethical systems as mind-dependent just because God is the ground of moral values for both. We need to preserve a meaningful distinction between mind-dependent and mind-independent realities if we are to properly understand these views. I’m not sure how this is, in general, to be done. But to take a stab at it, when we say that something is mind-dependent in the sense of being subjective, we mean that it is somehow generated by a mind’s activity; that is, it is either a mental phenomenon (like a pain or a dream) or is made up by a mind (like a fiction or imaginary object). Something that is mind-dependent merely in the sense that its existence entails the existence of a mind doesn’t qualify as subjective. Something that is mind-dependent merely in the sense that its existence entails that a mind exists may still be an objective reality because it is not a mental phenomenon or made up. Now clearly, moral values are, according to non-voluntaristic theistic ethics, not mind-dependent in the subjective sense. Yes, they entail that a mind, viz., God, exists, but they are not, for all that, mind-dependent in the subjective sense."

[@EnglishMike]

Agreed, "Do what I say" or perhaps "Do what I have been recorded as saying you should do in a potentially unclear and unreliable text that's over 2,000 years old as interpreted by you or your favorite pastor/apologist/theologian" isn't really an objective standard in the sense that most people would define it.

[@EnglishMike]

Rather amusing that WLC's video uses Newtonian mechanics as the basis for their example of an objective standard when Einstein's relativity later proved there is no objective frame of reference in the Universe. Maybe that's why Phyllis Schlafly's son Andrew has been on a crusade against the Theory of Relativity for that last 20 years or so...? (To avoid other people wasting their time, I know it was just an illustration.)

[@ApPersonaNonGrata]

No offense. But this entire video seems like it was made as a way to demonstrate elite-niche use of language; as a way to bolster respectability in socially high places. The only reason I understood most of it was because I've been sharing stream panels (for several years now) with similar "atheists" who work tirelessly to establish themselves for that same culturally elite project.

[@matthewlogan4267]

God is the creator of good not hunans

[@trumpbellend6717]

Do baseless assertions constitute some form of rational argument in your world dear? 🤭

[@matthewlogan4267]

@trumpbellend6717 like i said god is the creator of good, not human im sorry if I offended you

[@trumpbellend6717]

@matthewlogan4267 Lol you haven't offended me dear, you just made me laugh 🤭😅 I don't care what you "believe" dear. Your "beliefs" are no more valid than those who believe in any of the other thousands of subjective "Gods"

[@matthewlogan4267]

@trumpbellend6717 aww I got you triggered again

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@matthewlogan4267 Lol you don't have the intellectual capacity to "trigger" me dear. I came on here hoping for some kind of intellectual challenge.( I'm quite clearly barking up the wrong tree with you in that respect ) But hey im not complaining, swings and roundabouts, although you failed dismally in one respect , you more than made up for it with the hilarity and mirth your comments provided me. 🤫

[@KasparHauser6]

One of the greatest tragedies in human history was the hijacking of morality by religion. -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

[@sohu86x]

The God of Christianity has done plenty of evil and therefore disqualifies himself from being good. Unless human suffering is good, in which case Christianity is self contradictory because it promises the ceasing of human suffering through persistent, sanctioned human suffering.

[@Joeyk57030]

The god of evangelical biblical literalist has done evil, not orthodox Christianity, but there is no god of Christianity there is only God. People before Jesus attributed evil things to God, he came down to show us what he is really like which is loving and merciful only, and somehow people don’t see that. The OT is more about us and our projections onto God and in the NT God shows us what he is really like. Listen to David Bentley Hart for an idea of the “Christian God” not these brainwashed apologists like Turek and Craig who can’t make a philosophically coherent sentence. God suffers with us so he is good, he allows suffering because that is the only way to allow freedom which makes him good, and the suffering will end once we pass through door to the full life (formerly called death) where he will sanctify us with love made possible by his own death for us which makes him agape love. You can’t learn anything or make an informed decision without the chance of suffering, what God gives is the freedom to become free by participation with him. Suffering means nothing if the harm will not be overshadowed by the infinite good that follows it. I certainly would not trade away my past pain for the wisdom and freedom I gained from it, would you? In fact I thank God for not being a helicopter parent and allowing me to grow and trusting me with decisions that could lead to pain. In the end is always forgiveness, reconciliation, and the enormous love that follows that. You can’t have true freedom without learning from your mistakes, we are not born omniscient or perfect. There is zero contradictions if you think it all the way through without the evangelical baggage attached. God bless, have a nice day 🙏

[@byrondickens]

What a remarkably shallow understanding of Christianity. Typical of the completely theologically ignorant modern atheist. If you bothered paying attention to Rauser's videos instead of just trolling, you might discover that his theology - and that of others - is pretty much the opposite of your claim.