There can be no true objective morality without God (or some other superhuman authority/standard). But if we instead talk not of morality but of human flourishing we can get closer to an objective metric. There is still debate about what exactly that is and short term/long term and the utilitarian value of rights and norms but those are debates about the details. Anyone who claims that there is no objective pleasure or pain, happiness or suffering, is not being honest. Appealing to God is ultimately arbitrary anyway, unless you assume the question and claim that scripture is his will. Using a standard of long term and collective human happiness as an objective standard can recreate a morality as consistent and robust as any other. Ultimately all morality is partly consequentialist. No one ever says "this norm or standard is horrible for people and will greatly increase human suffering but it's still he right thing to do". Rather, debates seem to be more about utilitarian/deontological an short term/long term.
>>but of human flourishing we can get closer to an objective metric
Well, no, in several ways.
First of all, who says that should be my metric? Why should I believe them?
Secondly, one of the biggest things that morality has to answer is 'what is human flourshing'? If a mother sacrifices her life for that of her child, historic morality would call that a good, but on a 'human flourishing' standpoint... well... whose flourishing? How does 'Dulce et decorum est' and the concept of duty fit into human flourishing?
I'm afraid that human flourishing fails at every point. It might even allow people to put pineapple on pizza!
The biggest challenge with invoking G-d as the source of morality seems to be that there is not a complete consensus on what He has said about it. Jews and Christians are in agreement on a great deal, as regards morality, but differ on many details (as do various branches of Christianity among themselves). But I fully agree that, without Him, there cannot be any absolute morality and there cannot be sin.
You don't need to go through an elaborate analysis to see this: just look at the world and the disagreement over right and wrong. Was it just for Hamas to murder over 1000 Israelis, including burning people alive and raping women? There are an incredible number of people, both worldwide and in the US who would seem to say so, based on Marxist ideas of oppression and what "oppressed people" are allowed to do. Does this actually show an ability to reach sound conclusions from observation?
Now a major place that I disagree with Von is that when G-d declares something, it automatically applies to everyone. As a simple example, as an Orthodox Jew, I understand that keeping kosher is something that Jews must do, but nobody else is so obligated. This was all part of the Mosaic Covenant made specifically with my ancestors after He took us out of slavery.
Just as different plays on a sports team have different obligations, it is quite possible for G-d to create different roles and obligations for different groups of human beings.
1) A lack of consensus is not at all a problem. Indeed, religion explains why there will not be a consensus. But turn the issue around, and you have the impossibility of morality without God.
2) The 'it applies to everyone' is a simple misunderstanding. If God says that left-handed people must fast on Thursdays, as a law of morality that 'applies to everyone', but it only tells you to do something if you are left-handed and it is Thursday. So everyone should recognise (as a law of morality) that left-handed people have to fast on Thursdays, but only left-handed people have to fast, and only on Thursdays.
Thus if God says that the Jews should circumcize their children on the eighth day, then everyone needs to recognise that... Jews should circumcise their children on the eighth day. They should not start 'anti-circumcision' groups, etc.
All codes of morality have different rules for different circumstances, including who you are.
1) I cannot tell what connection you think there is between those two points. Clearly I agree that there cannot be morality without G-d; what does that have to do with consensus and "religion"'s view on it.
2) What you said was, "If God exists, then His standards apply to everyone… even that awful chimpanzee mother." That's not the same as what you are now saying - that different standards can apply to different people, but everyone has to accept that those standards do apply as specified.
2) I think you are leaving out what I am actually saying. When I say 'apply to everyone' I do not mean that everyone is required to do the same thing, at the same time, all across the world. I mean that there are not a group of people to whom God's standards apply, and other's who are exempt or who follow a different giver of standards.
Remember that this is a debate with an atheist. Who might say, "Well, I don't have to care what God thinks, because I don't believe in Him." That is the 'apply to everyone' I am addressing. Atheists, Christians, and Jews are all under 'the same standards'... meaning the same eternal set of laws given my the same lawgiver... which have particular ways particular people are to act. Priests vs Levites, men vs women, Jews vs Gentiles.
God calls (for example) women to act differently than men (we would disagree how, obviously). But men need to understand that they are under the same God, who gives those standards. Men need to not mock women for obeying the standards that God gives... women.
1) Clearly you agree... with the point of the paper. Great. Atheists don't, and they are my audience.
So you are saying, "Well, yes, obviously, there can't be morality without God. Now, for those of us who recognize that, how do we best communicate that to an audience who doesn't...?" Well, that's an interesting discussion... one I didn't address in this post.
There can be no true objective morality without God (or some other superhuman authority/standard). But if we instead talk not of morality but of human flourishing we can get closer to an objective metric. There is still debate about what exactly that is and short term/long term and the utilitarian value of rights and norms but those are debates about the details. Anyone who claims that there is no objective pleasure or pain, happiness or suffering, is not being honest. Appealing to God is ultimately arbitrary anyway, unless you assume the question and claim that scripture is his will. Using a standard of long term and collective human happiness as an objective standard can recreate a morality as consistent and robust as any other. Ultimately all morality is partly consequentialist. No one ever says "this norm or standard is horrible for people and will greatly increase human suffering but it's still he right thing to do". Rather, debates seem to be more about utilitarian/deontological an short term/long term.
>>but of human flourishing we can get closer to an objective metric
Well, no, in several ways.
First of all, who says that should be my metric? Why should I believe them?
Secondly, one of the biggest things that morality has to answer is 'what is human flourshing'? If a mother sacrifices her life for that of her child, historic morality would call that a good, but on a 'human flourishing' standpoint... well... whose flourishing? How does 'Dulce et decorum est' and the concept of duty fit into human flourishing?
I'm afraid that human flourishing fails at every point. It might even allow people to put pineapple on pizza!
The biggest challenge with invoking G-d as the source of morality seems to be that there is not a complete consensus on what He has said about it. Jews and Christians are in agreement on a great deal, as regards morality, but differ on many details (as do various branches of Christianity among themselves). But I fully agree that, without Him, there cannot be any absolute morality and there cannot be sin.
You don't need to go through an elaborate analysis to see this: just look at the world and the disagreement over right and wrong. Was it just for Hamas to murder over 1000 Israelis, including burning people alive and raping women? There are an incredible number of people, both worldwide and in the US who would seem to say so, based on Marxist ideas of oppression and what "oppressed people" are allowed to do. Does this actually show an ability to reach sound conclusions from observation?
Now a major place that I disagree with Von is that when G-d declares something, it automatically applies to everyone. As a simple example, as an Orthodox Jew, I understand that keeping kosher is something that Jews must do, but nobody else is so obligated. This was all part of the Mosaic Covenant made specifically with my ancestors after He took us out of slavery.
Just as different plays on a sports team have different obligations, it is quite possible for G-d to create different roles and obligations for different groups of human beings.
A couple of problems:
1) A lack of consensus is not at all a problem. Indeed, religion explains why there will not be a consensus. But turn the issue around, and you have the impossibility of morality without God.
2) The 'it applies to everyone' is a simple misunderstanding. If God says that left-handed people must fast on Thursdays, as a law of morality that 'applies to everyone', but it only tells you to do something if you are left-handed and it is Thursday. So everyone should recognise (as a law of morality) that left-handed people have to fast on Thursdays, but only left-handed people have to fast, and only on Thursdays.
Thus if God says that the Jews should circumcize their children on the eighth day, then everyone needs to recognise that... Jews should circumcise their children on the eighth day. They should not start 'anti-circumcision' groups, etc.
All codes of morality have different rules for different circumstances, including who you are.
1) I cannot tell what connection you think there is between those two points. Clearly I agree that there cannot be morality without G-d; what does that have to do with consensus and "religion"'s view on it.
2) What you said was, "If God exists, then His standards apply to everyone… even that awful chimpanzee mother." That's not the same as what you are now saying - that different standards can apply to different people, but everyone has to accept that those standards do apply as specified.
2) I think you are leaving out what I am actually saying. When I say 'apply to everyone' I do not mean that everyone is required to do the same thing, at the same time, all across the world. I mean that there are not a group of people to whom God's standards apply, and other's who are exempt or who follow a different giver of standards.
Remember that this is a debate with an atheist. Who might say, "Well, I don't have to care what God thinks, because I don't believe in Him." That is the 'apply to everyone' I am addressing. Atheists, Christians, and Jews are all under 'the same standards'... meaning the same eternal set of laws given my the same lawgiver... which have particular ways particular people are to act. Priests vs Levites, men vs women, Jews vs Gentiles.
God calls (for example) women to act differently than men (we would disagree how, obviously). But men need to understand that they are under the same God, who gives those standards. Men need to not mock women for obeying the standards that God gives... women.
1) Clearly you agree... with the point of the paper. Great. Atheists don't, and they are my audience.
So you are saying, "Well, yes, obviously, there can't be morality without God. Now, for those of us who recognize that, how do we best communicate that to an audience who doesn't...?" Well, that's an interesting discussion... one I didn't address in this post.
Well done, Von! For the record, I like pineapple with ham on my pizza. : )
Heathen!!
: )
Next in series? - Not sure which one it is. Have yet to read this am's post.
Yeah, I deleted that comment. I thought you were commenting on the first in the series... which I assume you have read.
I sometimes get lost in these comment threads.
: ) I know - it's easy to do.
Well written. I am going to have to ponder some of this a bit, but look forward to seeing where my thoughts take me!
I am enjoying this a lot!
Me too