If morality is objective, how does it relate to knowing what is moral?
Does God really know the
facts about what is right and wrong?
God is supposed to know all things. This is impossible. Apart from the fact that I exist now, I know nothing. Everything I say I know I mean I believe. It must be the same with God. It is impossible to know anything for sure apart from one's own existence. Thus God is a contradictory idea. A God that has beliefs is not a God at all. Even if those beliefs are right, God cannot know this for he only believes it. God is not entitled to ask anybody to agree with his beliefs about right and wrong. How much less can he be entitled to command? Such a God should be defied.
Does he give us such
knowledge?
They say if a person knows what is right or wrong it is because God put that knowledge into them. If we are the products of chance it seems mad to say that our values are real. But the fact is, whatever about their reality, nothing is to be served as far as we are concerned by suppressing our sense of values. That we follow them without being able to prove their validity shows that we are our own gods. God cannot be our God even if he exists. Suppose a banknote falls into my lap by chance. It may be real or fake. Nothing will be served by me treating it like a fake and lighting the fire with it. And so it is with our values.
Is objective morality's
existence more important than knowing it exists?
It is more important for objective morality to exist than to know it. Objective morality existing matters more than knowing it exists. Knowing morality is objective cannot matter most.
Why?
Objective morality will still exist if nobody knows of it or cares. So it is what matters. Knowing is only good because it means you are in tune with the truth.
So the truth has to matter
before knowing can matter.
So morality's existence matters
most for knowing it exists is impossible if it does not exist. Thus its existing
matters more than knowing.
Can morality being true matter
as much as knowing it is? No! To ask the question shows one is - at least a
little sceptical - about objective morality.
Principles or specific moral guidelines? How important is it to know morality's content?
Another question.
Is it knowing that morality is
real that matters and not knowing exactly what is to be classed as moral or
immoral? Is knowing it is real even if you don't know the specifics the most
important?
Yes - it is more important to
know that justice is real than how to implement it. The principle is not about
how you apply it. For example, both vengeful people and softies both believe in
justice but disagree on how to serve it.
You can know objective morality exists even if you don't know the content. For example, you may sense that it is wrong to hurt others for fun but that does not mean you think it is wrong to rob banks. You might not see how bad it is to rob banks. The specifics are no good by themselves. Knowing that robbing banks is bad is no good unless you know that hurting people is wrong and it is true that hurting others needlessly is wrong. God even if good for saying morality exists is no good for telling you what it is. It only makes it a bigger tragedy unnecessarily so you will hold that it is actually immoral to fuse morality and God. If God grounds morality he cannot ground any morality’s content. You have to be God with the content so there is very little room for him. In fact stressing him or making him important would be an evil.
Being moral means being in
total opposition to an evil, not because it is a free act or down to one but
because of the damage and harm it does. Caring about it being an act is really
about you trying to use the harm done as an excuse for judging a person or what
they have done. With morality something is bad in itself regardless of what good
or bad results come from it or it is bad if the results are bad. It is one or
the other. How could you tell if one moral principle is better than
another or is the right one if morality is about an
excuse for picking on people?
In any case, it is obviously
more important that hurting others for fun is wrong than that robbing banks is
wrong. The general principle that hurting others is bad comes first. The bank
robbery is a detail.
The lesson from all this is
that if God is about moral principles, the notion of God does not necessarily go
with the notion that a person must do x or y but not z. The believer and the
atheist both have only the principles and it is up to them to do their best to
apply them. Both live equally on the hope of getting it right.
Not everybody knows if
objective morality exists. A very young person might not know. A brainwashed
person wouldn't know. Would an all-good God who is all about objective morality
equip one person to know and another not to? Certainly not!
If objective morality is
important and if people can know it exists then it is an objective evil if
somebody does not know. So the answer again is no.
Know or believe?
Is it best to know objective
morality exists or believe it exists? The two are not the same. Knowing is
seeing that something is true while belief is not as certain. Belief is certain
but not 100%.
If objective morality is of
supreme importance then it is best to know it. Belief risks being wrong about
its existence and what it condemns and affirms. Belief risks you hurting people
by treating them as if they should adhere to objective morality.
The believer in objective
morality will agree that:
The person who does not believe
in objective morality cannot be accused of being dangerously wrong without
proof.
It is better to know that
justice and love are right than to merely believe.
Objective morality is the basis
for these value judgements.
But they show up a
contradiction in objective morality.
Objective morality does accuse the doubter or disbeliever in objective morality. And objective morality is a belief despite its asserting that mere belief is immoral if knowledge is possible. And objective morality suggests knowledge is possible for objective morality states that justice and love are factually right.
Their rightness is a fact.
At least it demands the
abandonment of God
To turn God into the basis of
objective morality and its representation is to say God is a contradiction and
simply cannot live up to the demands of objective morality for they are
incoherent.
It is better to argue that man
has to decide what is objectively moral. Bringing God into it only makes the
problem worse. Take it this way. If we have nothing but objective morality and
it has flaws but seems to work okay then by attributing it to God you give it
more glory than it deserves and you end up worshipping it instead of seeing it
as a necessary evil. So the flaws in objective morality indicate that the true
servant of objective morality discards God.
The Doing is more important
than the Why
What if the doing of moral
things is better than the why of doing them? Is it better to just be kind to a
sick baby than to know or believe why you should help? Many say yes. Your
intention is excellent for you are following the best light you have. Those who
ground objective morality in God are denying this. For them God is morality so
if you do good without realising that he is, then your action though beneficial
is not really moral or good. It is clearly objectively right to do good for the
baby without
The extremist implications
Hypothetically, what if it were
best for a person not to know objective morality exists? Hypothetically, what if
informing a person that objective morality exists magically kills them? If
objective morality comes first then you inform the person and kill them. The
excuse will be that objective morality has to be honoured as real. This example
shows the cruel streak that all morality has.
Believers in objective
morality or "believers"?
What if you think you know
morality is real? Thinking you know means you can have the wrong values and the
wrong rules. It is possible that most if not all of Christendom's moralists are
guilty of merely pretending that their thinking about morality is the same as
knowing about morality! If objective morality can be known or is true then it
does not follow that that is why they endorse it. A person who should know
something might still only think they know it. They might act as if they do but
they do not. They are based on their own ideas even though there is no hint that
they are. That could be deliberate.
And to what extent do you know
morality is real when you make many mistakes in working out the specifics? The
specifics reflect something of the general. Sometimes when you are told not to
rob banks you learn that hurting others is wrong.
If morality can be objective
and can be known it does not follow that this truth is really helpful. It does
not follow that we are good at adapting to it. The evidence says that we are
not...and even if we seem to have adapted we still only seem to.
Belief in objective morality is
more inspired by people who we think practice it than by thinking about the
principles. But copying others and absorbing their influence is no way of
finding objective morality.
Even if objective morality
exists, people could be interested in it only because they want it to be true
not because it is. If you want to control people you need to make them think
your rules are objectively correct.
When you don't recognise
objective morality
You are told moral principle
are facts. You don't see that.
One reason could be that the
principles you are looking at are not facts.
Or it could be that the fault
lies in you.
Morality claims to be about
love. If it were, it would prefer to have a person avoid blaming you. The person
would have to decide that morality is not factual at all for you don't see it.
It is no answer to say that we
need virtues such as compassion and generosity and patience to live in this
world and we need laws to help us develop them meaning that love does not
replace law but love needs the law. It is not an answer for it is based on
denial of innocent until proven guilty. No real morality can be built on such a
foundation but a forgery can.
Why THINKING Moral Laws are
Facts is Not Enough!
People say they think moral
rules and codes are factually correct. They think it is probable that objective
morality is not a delusion.
Nobody cares how probable you
think it is as long as you think it is probable. That is very odd. Surely you
want belief in morality to be as strong as possible!
And there is no such thing as
thinking something is a fact being enough. It is not. A fact doesn't care what
you think and is not about what you think. A fact is a fact no matter what you
think. If morality and each item in its complex code of accepted behaviours is a
fact then it needs to be recognisable as a fact. Calling something a fact
because you think it is a fact is to lie and to endanger truth. It is dangerous
to put out things as fact when you are not sure.
Thinking each rule of morality and morality itself is a fact is dangerous and counter-productive and arrogant. It contradicts the very morality it pretends to protect.
The answer is: moral principle says if you have no idea of what is objectively moral or what it means then it is objectively moral to make an attempt. You need objective morality and the concept is forced on you even if you say morality is relative – such a saying is unnatural and forced and warped. It is better to guess and live the morality you have for errors will show up in time if it is wrong or needs fixing. Guessing and testing is more important than grounding it or caring or knowing why it is morally correct. Practicing what you understand to be objective morality is a principle and the most foundational and important and basic moral principle of all. If you have to guess the best guess is that morality is about maintaining the well-being of others and yourself.
The danger is people can treat
the issue as an excuse to have whatever rules they want. But that would
not be the principles fault. It is an abuse.
An Argument
“Atheist beliefs can explain
why people are violent and evil and crazy but it cannot explain why people are
often peaceful and good and rational.” That is one hell of a bizarre argument.
It contradicts the Christian belief that violence is okay in the right
circumstances. It would be odd to think that violence when not justified is
explained by atheism but violence when justified is not. It is still the use of
a necessary evil. It is still nothing to be celebrated.
Conclusion
If objective morality is incoherent then it is worsened by the notion of God. We are talking about believing or knowing that morality exists even if you don’t know exactly what it entails. Knowing right and wrong must exist is one thing but knowing the difference is another.