Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[HJCarden]

Can any moral system justify itself without appealing to a higher power?

I dont believe that it is rational to HOLD anyone to a moral system that is based on human rationality.

Take Kantian Ethics for example. I fully agree that it is rational to follow the categorical imperative, however I also believe that we cannot expect every person to act rationally all the time. It would be ideal if everyone were rational, but this does not provide sufficient grounding even for the rational actor.

A rational person would realize that it would be best for all to act rationally, however they must realize that it reasonable that at some times some people will act irrationally. What are we to do with irrational actors? Of course they did not act according to good reason, because they acted immorally, but what beyond that?

On the other hand, Christian morality takes is basis to be the direct word of the creator of the universe. Its grounding is arational in that it is said to be handed down by an ineffable creator. It is beyond what we can comprehend. But the reason why it is rational to HOLD people to such a moral stature is that it supersedes our human rationality. Morality, IF it is real, must be based on something more akin to a law of physics, rather than a construction of a human consciousness.

[Lagayascienza]

Evolutionary ethics adequately explains our core morality and provides guidance without abstract systems like Kant's and without gods and religion. And our evolved morality has worked well enough. The problem with Kant's Categorical Imperative is that it doesn't work. Its rules are highly abstract and impossible to adhere to because they ignore the consequences of actions. Moreover, in terms of core human morality, we, in most cases, intuitively know right from wrong. Our moral intuition is an adaptation that has worked well enough to ensure our survival. Our inborn morality evolved as a quick and dirty solution to the problem of getting us to cooperate in small bands out on the savanna. It enhanced our individual survival for long enough to ensure the propagation of our genes. We don't need an abstract system like Kant's. And doing the abstract moral calculus would have been beyond our forebears out on the savanna just as it is beyond most of us today. Neither do we need a system based in religion. Religious rules are not the word of any god because gods are maximally unlikely to exist. And the gods people think do exist have different rules.

Our morality is real enough, but it is based in our evolved, subjective sentiments. Gods and rationality had nothing to do with it. We had moral sentiments long before we invented gods and religion. Insofar as our evolved, core human morality aided the propagation of our genes, it seems to have been motivated be a kind of logic, but evolution is not teleological; it has no foresight. It is a blind watch-maker. Whatever helps launch genes into the future is what is naturally selected for. Religion is false and all the convoluted theorizing of philosophical ethics in search of a rational morality have got nowhere over the last two-and-a-half millennia. And that is simply because our morality is subjective and cannot be objectified. Hume was the first to realize this. Evolutionary ethnics has shown him to have been right. But people still think they need religion in which to base their ethics. And religions want very much to keep people thinking that way. The jobs of preachers, the wealth of churches and their control over the folk all depend on it.

[HJCarden]

Neither do we need a system based in religion. Religious rules are not the word of any god because gods are maximally unlikely to exist. And the gods people think do exist have different rules.

Our morality is real enough, but it is based in our evolved, subjective sentiments. Gods and rationality had nothing to do with it. We had moral sentiments long before we invented gods and religion.

The main thrust of my post was not to discuss religious disagreement or theology, nor was it to say that morality is for certain handed down from a God on high.

Rather I wanted to argue that it would be rational to hold everyone to the same moral standard IF and ONLY IF it was handed down by a God on high. To say that evolutionary biology can sufficiently explain our moral sentiments (I agree) is not to say that it is for certain the genesis of our morality. I also do not believe that it is rational to hold people to a moral standard based on evolution. You can imagine that through the process of evolution, different groups of humans might evolve different sets of morals. How is it rational to expect a person to hold onto their own evolved set of morals when they are confronted with conflicting views?

[Count Lucanor]

On the other hand, Christian morality takes is basis to be the direct word of the creator of the universe. Its grounding is arational in that it is said to be handed down by an ineffable creator. It is beyond what we can comprehend. But the reason why it is rational to HOLD people to such a moral stature is that it supersedes our human rationality. Morality, IF it is real, must be based on something more akin to a law of physics, rather than a construction of a human consciousness.

The problem with this is that there’s an infinite number of possible originators of moral codes, being the Christian god just one of them. There would be then, as many moral codes as there are possible “first causes” of them, so all the appeal to their objective power, dissolves in its relativism. You still will have no certainty of what is the governing moral code. “Being based on something more” does not point to an identifiable property of a moral system, it just creates an open set of all of things that do not share another property.

In the end, you will have to appeal to human rationality to figure things out.

[Lagayascienza]

The main thrust of my post was not to discuss religious disagreement or theology, nor was it to say that morality is for certain handed down from a God on high.

Rather I wanted to argue that it would be rational to hold everyone to the same moral standard IF and ONLY IF it was handed down by a God on high. To say that evolutionary biology can sufficiently explain our moral sentiments (I agree) is not to say that it is for certain the genesis of our morality. I also do not believe that it is rational to hold people to a moral standard based on evolution. You can imagine that through the process of evolution, different groups of humans might evolve different sets of morals. How is it rational to expect a person to hold onto their own evolved set of morals when they are confronted with conflicting views?

Ok, apologies, I misunderstood your argument. However, human core morality is remarkably similar across cultures, which makes sense when we understand that we are all of us members of the one species which evolved in Africa, colonized Europe, and a small number of whom survived the Pleistocene and fanned out across the globe, most of which happened in the Holocene. Evolution by natural selection of large animals like us takes a very long time. There was not time for us to evolve separate core moralities. The differences we see today in morality are cultural and not genetic. Just as there are no genetic differences that account for different languages, so there are no genetic variation that accounts for differences in morality. Therefore, your argument may succeed if we take culturally determined differences in morality as as explanation of moral diversity. There are indeed differences and therefore it may not be rational to insist everyone should conform to the one set of values. But, again, the differences will only be in the details. All cultures agree that, for example, unjustified killing and stealing are wrong, and that it is morally right to care for the young and respect our elderly. The moral requirement in some cultures for woman to walk around in black bags is not part of core human morality, It is cultural and, as such, is amenable to change in a way that genetic differences are not. If we could get over our culturally determined differences, religion for example, it might help us all get along together.

[HJCarden]

The problem with this is that there’s an infinite number of possible originators of moral codes, being the Christian god just one of them. There would be then, as many moral codes as there are possible “first causes” of them, so all the appeal to their objective power, dissolves in its relativism. You still will have no certainty of what is the governing moral code. “Being based on something more” does not point to an identifiable property of a moral system, it just creates an open set of all of things that do not share another property.

In the end, you will have to appeal to human rationality to figure things out.

Yes, the Christian God would be just one of the potential originators of moral codes. However, it would still be true that if God were real then just one would actually exist. The plurality of potential gods does not detract from my thesis that

It would be rational to hold people to a moral code IF and ONLY IF it were given from such a god.

My argument does not concern deciding between the deities that humanity has raised, rather it deals with the type of thing a moral code must actually be. While "being based on something more" truly does not define anything concrete, I am implying that it must be based on something that could supersede our rationality. Laws such as gravity extended beyond the limits of our rationality. We observe how gravity works and we must eventually say "thats just how it works" when the explanatory power of our observations runs out. I believe rationally we have to accept that we are limited in this way regarding whatever Morality actually is.

[Count Lucanor]

The problem with this is that there’s an infinite number of possible originators of moral codes, being the Christian god just one of them. There would be then, as many moral codes as there are possible “first causes” of them, so all the appeal to their objective power, dissolves in its relativism. You still will have no certainty of what is the governing moral code. “Being based on something more” does not point to an identifiable property of a moral system, it just creates an open set of all of things that do not share another property.

In the end, you will have to appeal to human rationality to figure things out.

Yes, the Christian God would be just one of the potential originators of moral codes. However, it would still be true that if God were real then just one would actually exist. The plurality of potential gods does not detract from my thesis that

It would be rational to hold people to a moral code IF and ONLY IF it were given from such a god.

My argument does not concern deciding between the deities that humanity has raised, rather it deals with the type of thing a moral code must actually be.

If your thesis is that a specific moral code is originated, passed by a deity to humans for their use and to comply with, then the plurality of potential deities certainly represents a problem, since you still would need to use rationality to figure out which is the moral code that applies, while deciding which deity is the right one, that is, the one that has given the legitimate moral code. Now, if your thesis is that what was given from a deity is the capacity to think and act morally, to intuit and apply moral codes, you would have to explain how that differs from that same capacity given by nature. Instead of “god gave it”, we would have: “nature gave it”, and it would be just as rational as you propose. We would observe how nature works to make people act and think morally and say: “that’s just the way it is”.

[HJCarden]

If your thesis is that a specific moral code is originated, passed by a deity to humans for their use and to comply with, then the plurality of potential deities certainly represents a problem, since you still would need to use rationality to figure out which is the moral code that applies, while deciding which deity is the right one, that is, the one that has given the legitimate moral code. Now, if your thesis is that what was given from a deity is the capacity to think and act morally, to intuit and apply moral codes, you would have to explain how that differs from that same capacity given by nature. Instead of “god gave it”, we would have: “nature gave it”, and it would be just as rational as you propose. We would observe how nature works to make people act and think morally and say: “that’s just the way it is”.

My thesis is not IF there is a special moral code passed down by a deity, rather that something like that is the only type of moral code one could rationally be expected to follow.

I agree that it would be confusing to find a difference in morality from a god and morality from nature, however I think that if one were to truly believe that morality only came from "nature" it would be hard to convince someone to follow it. Just that something is natural does not mean it is good...is this not where human reason should say that we must suspend judgement because we cannot decide if nature is "good" ?

[LuckyR]

Can any moral system justify itself without appealing to a higher power?

I dont believe that it is rational to HOLD anyone to a moral system that is based on human rationality.

Take Kantian Ethics for example. I fully agree that it is rational to follow the categorical imperative, however I also believe that we cannot expect every person to act rationally all the time. It would be ideal if everyone were rational, but this does not provide sufficient grounding even for the rational actor.

A rational person would realize that it would be best for all to act rationally, however they must realize that it reasonable that at some times some people will act irrationally. What are we to do with irrational actors? Of course they did not act according to good reason, because they acted immorally, but what beyond that?

On the other hand, Christian morality takes is basis to be the direct word of the creator of the universe. Its grounding is arational in that it is said to be handed down by an ineffable creator. It is beyond what we can comprehend. But the reason why it is rational to HOLD people to such a moral stature is that it supersedes our human rationality. Morality, IF it is real, must be based on something more akin to a law of physics, rather than a construction of a human consciousness.

Several things. First, moral codes are personal and subjective thus don't need justification since they only have to satisfy the individual who declares them to be valid. Of course we all CAN verbalize (to ourselves and/or others) a set of "justifications", but it is not required.

Ethical standards (including it's subset of the Law) do require justification since members of the community are held (at some level, greater or lesser) to those standards.

Besides, if one were to go through the trouble of justifying a set of Moral codes, I would be more persuaded by a code's internal logic than an external endorsement (say, by a god).

[Belindi]

Can any moral system justify itself without appealing to a higher power?

I dont believe that it is rational to HOLD anyone to a moral system that is based on human rationality.

Take Kantian Ethics for example. I fully agree that it is rational to follow the categorical imperative, however I also believe that we cannot expect every person to act rationally all the time. It would be ideal if everyone were rational, but this does not provide sufficient grounding even for the rational actor.

A rational person would realize that it would be best for all to act rationally, however they must realize that it reasonable that at some times some people will act irrationally. What are we to do with irrational actors? Of course they did not act according to good reason, because they acted immorally, but what beyond that?

On the other hand, Christian morality takes is basis to be the direct word of the creator of the universe. Its grounding is arational in that it is said to be handed down by an ineffable creator. It is beyond what we can comprehend. But the reason why it is rational to HOLD people to such a moral stature is that it supersedes our human rationality. Morality, IF it is real, must be based on something more akin to a law of physics, rather than a construction of a human consciousness.

Several things. First, moral codes are personal and subjective thus don't need justification since they only have to satisfy the individual who declares them to be valid. Of course we all CAN verbalize (to ourselves and/or others) a set of "justifications", but it is not required.

Ethical standards (including it's subset of the Law) do require justification since members of the community are held (at some level, greater or lesser) to those standards.

Besides, if one were to go through the trouble of justifying a set of Moral codes, I would be more persuaded by a code's internal logic than an external endorsement (say, by a god).

Codified morals are not subjective unless they are codified by an extremely influential person such as Muhammad, or a powerful dictator such as Hitler.

Popular endorsement of a moral code originates in traditions and economics. For instance it was a traditional morality that backed King George and other big people in England to retain England's American colonials as subjects of the King. "Not so "said the new Americans, "Our moral code is that all men are created equal we are not subjects of any king".
Today modern people admire the American revolutionaries' moral code , as codified in The Declaration of Independence, and coloured by the bravery of new Americans against the powerful English army

[Count Lucanor]

If your thesis is that a specific moral code is originated, passed by a deity to humans for their use and to comply with, then the plurality of potential deities certainly represents a problem, since you still would need to use rationality to figure out which is the moral code that applies, while deciding which deity is the right one, that is, the one that has given the legitimate moral code. Now, if your thesis is that what was given from a deity is the capacity to think and act morally, to intuit and apply moral codes, you would have to explain how that differs from that same capacity given by nature. Instead of “god gave it”, we would have: “nature gave it”, and it would be just as rational as you propose. We would observe how nature works to make people act and think morally and say: “that’s just the way it is”.

My thesis is not IF there is a special moral code passed down by a deity, rather that something like that is the only type of moral code one could rationally be expected to follow.

Then your argument is that only moral codes passed down by deities are rational because they (supposedly) transcend human reality. Another major problem with this is that all moral codes appear in a social setting and are necessarily mediated by human rationality. The gods don’t appear as part of everyday experience to pass down moral codes, it is always a person or a group of people that claims to have knowledge of the moral code passed down to them by deities and tries to convince you to follow it. But as I already explained, there are many moral doctrines as there are religions and there are deities. It doesn’t make any difference in terms of rationality to receive moral codes passed down by our ancestors than from the priests, or whether is justified by the authority of a deity or by the laws of nature.

I agree that it would be confusing to find a difference in morality from a god and morality from nature, however I think that if one were to truly believe that morality only came from "nature" it would be hard to convince someone to follow it. Just that something is natural does not mean it is good...is this not where human reason should say that we must suspend judgement because we cannot decide if nature is "good" ?

You fail to recognize that there is non-religious morality.

BTW, how would one decide that because something is divine, supernatural, it means that it is good? And without appealing to rationality?

[LuckyR]

Can any moral system justify itself without appealing to a higher power?

I dont believe that it is rational to HOLD anyone to a moral system that is based on human rationality.

Take Kantian Ethics for example. I fully agree that it is rational to follow the categorical imperative, however I also believe that we cannot expect every person to act rationally all the time. It would be ideal if everyone were rational, but this does not provide sufficient grounding even for the rational actor.

A rational person would realize that it would be best for all to act rationally, however they must realize that it reasonable that at some times some people will act irrationally. What are we to do with irrational actors? Of course they did not act according to good reason, because they acted immorally, but what beyond that?

On the other hand, Christian morality takes is basis to be the direct word of the creator of the universe. Its grounding is arational in that it is said to be handed down by an ineffable creator. It is beyond what we can comprehend. But the reason why it is rational to HOLD people to such a moral stature is that it supersedes our human rationality. Morality, IF it is real, must be based on something more akin to a law of physics, rather than a construction of a human consciousness.

Several things. First, moral codes are personal and subjective thus don't need justification since they only have to satisfy the individual who declares them to be valid. Of course we all CAN verbalize (to ourselves and/or others) a set of "justifications", but it is not required.

Ethical standards (including it's subset of the Law) do require justification since members of the community are held (at some level, greater or lesser) to those standards.

Besides, if one were to go through the trouble of justifying a set of Moral codes, I would be more persuaded by a code's internal logic than an external endorsement (say, by a god).

Codified morals are not subjective unless they are codified by an extremely influential person such as Muhammad, or a powerful dictator such as Hitler.

Popular endorsement of a moral code originates in traditions and economics. For instance it was a traditional morality that backed King George and other big people in England to retain England's American colonials as subjects of the King. "Not so "said the new Americans, "Our moral code is that all men are created equal we are not subjects of any king".
Today modern people admire the American revolutionaries' moral code , as codified in The Declaration of Independence, and coloured by the bravery of new Americans against the powerful English army

I agree with your posting, except that by my understanding you're describing Ethical standards, not Moral codes.

[Belindi]

Can any moral system justify itself without appealing to a higher power?

I dont believe that it is rational to HOLD anyone to a moral system that is based on human rationality.

Take Kantian Ethics for example. I fully agree that it is rational to follow the categorical imperative, however I also believe that we cannot expect every person to act rationally all the time. It would be ideal if everyone were rational, but this does not provide sufficient grounding even for the rational actor.

A rational person would realize that it would be best for all to act rationally, however they must realize that it reasonable that at some times some people will act irrationally. What are we to do with irrational actors? Of course they did not act according to good reason, because they acted immorally, but what beyond that?

On the other hand, Christian morality takes is basis to be the direct word of the creator of the universe. Its grounding is arational in that it is said to be handed down by an ineffable creator. It is beyond what we can comprehend. But the reason why it is rational to HOLD people to such a moral stature is that it supersedes our human rationality. Morality, IF it is real, must be based on something more akin to a law of physics, rather than a construction of a human consciousness.

Several things. First, moral codes are personal and subjective thus don't need justification since they only have to satisfy the individual who declares them to be valid. Of course we all CAN verbalize (to ourselves and/or others) a set of "justifications", but it is not required.

Ethical standards (including it's subset of the Law) do require justification since members of the community are held (at some level, greater or lesser) to those standards.

Besides, if one were to go through the trouble of justifying a set of Moral codes, I would be more persuaded by a code's internal logic than an external endorsement (say, by a god).

Codified morals are not subjective unless they are codified by an extremely influential person such as Muhammad, or a powerful dictator such as Hitler.

Popular endorsement of a moral code originates in traditions and economics. For instance it was a traditional morality that backed King George and other big people in England to retain England's American colonials as subjects of the King. "Not so "said the new Americans, "Our moral code is that all men are created equal we are not subjects of any king".
Today modern people admire the American revolutionaries' moral code , as codified in The Declaration of Independence, and coloured by the bravery of new Americans against the powerful English army

I agree with your posting, except that by my understanding you're describing Ethical standards, not Moral codes.

Is not The Declaration of Independence legally binding? After all, Empire Loyalists had to flee to Canada after America won the war. I'd have thought the morals as codified in The D of I are moral laws if not national laws too. Not mere ethics that pertain only to specific groups and professions.

[LuckyR]

I agree with your posting, except that by my understanding you're describing Ethical standards, not Moral codes.

Is not The Declaration of Independence legally binding? After all, Empire Loyalists had to flee to Canada after America won the war. I'd have thought the morals as codified in The D of I are moral laws if not national laws too. Not mere ethics that pertain only to specific groups and professions.

My understanding (which I know is not universally accepted) is that Moral codes are what individuals use to make behavioral choices and Ethical standards are how individual behaviors are judged by the community.

[Gertie]

Can any moral system justify itself without appealing to a higher power?

I dont believe that it is rational to HOLD anyone to a moral system that is based on human rationality.

Take Kantian Ethics for example. I fully agree that it is rational to follow the categorical imperative, however I also believe that we cannot expect every person to act rationally all the time. It would be ideal if everyone were rational, but this does not provide sufficient grounding even for the rational actor.

A rational person would realize that it would be best for all to act rationally, however they must realize that it reasonable that at some times some people will act irrationally. What are we to do with irrational actors? Of course they did not act according to good reason, because they acted immorally, but what beyond that?

On the other hand, Christian morality takes is basis to be the direct word of the creator of the universe. Its grounding is arational in that it is said to be handed down by an ineffable creator. It is beyond what we can comprehend. But the reason why it is rational to HOLD people to such a moral stature is that it supersedes our human rationality. Morality, IF it is real, must be based on something more akin to a law of physics, rather than a construction of a human consciousness.

I'd agree that if it's true that an omniscient being exists, then that being would by definition know what goodness and right and wrong is  beyond doubt. (Omniscience escapes Euthyphro's Dilemma imo). And if such a being transmitted that information to us somehow, then that would be a quasi-'objective' morality we should all follow.

If such an entity doesn't exist, then  right and wrong is an abstract concept created by humans, which can be explained by our evolved social intuitions, with environmental variations.  Which leaves us with a problem in establishing a universal human morality which is more than an observation of the 'Is' state of affairs of human nature - for better or worse.

However, we can understand that suffering feels bad for all experiencing conscious subjects like us, and our well-being matters to all of us. For humans, suffering is 'bad', and flourishing is 'good'.

So we have a shared interest in trying to promote well-being as The Good, and reducing suffering. Which would be a rational, subject-based foundation for the Concept of Morality. (Without such an interest/stake in the outcome of actions, moral decisions are irrelevantt - it's having a stake in the state of affairs which justifies Oughts).



What we would do with people who acted against the good would be up to us. But with such a foundation as trying to promote well-being, we'd have a way to approach the question consonant with morality.  So we might educate, create cultural narratives, social mores, laws  and institutions to bolster The Good.  And apply appropriate deterrent penalties, restrictions and rehabilitation  to non-co-operators.  While bearing in mind that the freedom to pursue one's own idiosyncratic  desires and goals is part of what it means to flourish.  That's a balancing act which is impossible to perfectly measure, but the reasonable aim would be to try to do better. With our foundational touchstone of promoting well-being available to check in with when reviewing the consequences of our personal decisions or instituting this or that specific policy or rule.