What would be the impact of objective morality?

This seems to be an obvious question, that should be quite easy to answer, but there seem to be a few layers to it. How would it affect atheism? How would it affect various religious ideas? How would it affect society as a whole? These are some of the questions that could be raised, for those who have other questions I encourage you to post in the comment box at the bottom of the post.

Atheists, in my initial post on subjective morality (I plan on returning to this post, it was a bad argument, but not for any of the reasons pointed out by those who commented), argued against objective morality, but I felt, didn’t really feel provided an argument for subjective morality. The idea that morality is subjective isn’t an atheist condition though, it is held by ecumenical religious groups as well. It is also not a universal expression of atheism, prominent atheists such as Sam Harris argue for objective morality. This argument, of course, provides more fuel for the argument that religion and science are not non-overlapping magisteria, but that is another discussion. I haven’t read Harris’ book, The moral landscape, but I can say that I disagree with his definition of morality, which regards negative effects on conscious beings, as he expressed in a presentation on TED. I feel that any definition of morality that would act as a foundation for a study on objective morality would have to start of by being universal, and with human sacrifice being a part of old world practices, Harris missed the mark in my opinion, so I tried to define morality as a characteristic in order to take my own personal views of morality out of the equation. Leah Libresco of Unequally Yoked, posted here about the book, and expressed here belief that absolute morality is compatible with atheism. I may believe that morality is absolute, but I’d find it hard to argue outside of religious circles, but it can’t be absolute if it isn’t objective, and we could find with objective study that some things are absolute, which would go a long way to helping Leah prove her point.

The question though, was, how would this affect an atheist? The answer is fairly simple, if science could tell us what was right or wrong, at least in some cases, the moral compass argument used by Christians, and other religious groups would fall apart (I personally think this argument is invalid for other reasons.) It would actually strengthen the argument that people don’t need religion as a moral compass, since it is something which is measurable. Objective morality, should actually be seen as a blessing to atheists, since it gives them something to build on, perhaps my definition of morality in morality as a characteristic is unsatisfactory, in which case the measurable affects of morality (part one and part two) would have to be revised, but at least it gives atheists something to work with, beyond simply ruling it out as subjective.

I will do follow up posts to answer the questions as they relate to society,  and religion, since the discussion on atheism is longer than I thought it would be, this will make it easier to manage the discussion though, since each question is a different discussion.

About these ads

2 thoughts on “What would be the impact of objective morality?”

  1. Here’s a nice example… Old testament… stone homosexuals.

    New testament… let those without sin cast the first stone (but still uphold all of gods laws).

    Um… so it’s moral or immoral to stone homosexuals, and why? Isn’t that subjective to the testament in question and subsequently open to further change in the future?

    Even your previous points on china’s population rules (one child per couple) is an example of how things remain subjective… and can change.

    Objective morality simply doesn’t exist because conditions will forever change.

    1. Even your previous points on china’s population rules (one child per couple) is an example of how things remain subjective… and can change.

      Objective morality simply doesn’t exist because conditions will forever change.

      This argument is pretty stale now, objective is not necessarily unchanging or absolute. I even made provision for the distinction with this statement:

      I may believe that morality is absolute, but I’d find it hard to argue outside of religious circles, but it can’t be absolute if it isn’t objective, and we could find with objective study that some things are absolute

      But if this doesn’t help, how about this: check any dictionary you like, and find where objective is defined as unchanging, since your argument hinges on that.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s