Does Objective Morality Mean Anything?

[wingedbeast]

The morality debate in the atheism-v-theism debates has me thinking on objective morality. Essentially, the question in the title. Does Objective Morality mean anything?

The argument, from the Divine Command/Divine Nature theory of morality, is that without God, there is no ontology of objective morality. It doesn't come about in the first place.

In order for that to even approach having legitimacy, Objective Morality, in terms of pure definition of the term, cannot mean benefiting people, avoiding harming people, or in any way respecting people's needs, desires, or persons in general. Objective Morality, in terms of pure definition of the term, then does not address any specific goals or values.

But, the various means of accomplishing that ontology all share an error. The Teleological argument argues that acting in accordance with the intentions of a designer is how one achieves one's fullest potential. The potter-and-clay analogy argues that God made, therefore owns us, and as owned objects we have the obligation to do as the owner desires. William Lane Craig, in his Divine Nature moral ontology, argues that the only sufficient foundation for objective morality is in the goodness of God.

Spot the error? Probably. But, as stated before, I'm in love with the sound of my own text, so here goes.

The Teleological argument assumes an objective morality of achieving one's fullest potential. The potter-and-clay analogy assumes the objective morality ownership and obligations of owned to owner. William Lane Craig's argument relies upon the objective goodness of God... a goodness that, itself, cannot exist unless there is already an objective morality by which objective goodness can be identified.

All of these arguments achieve objective morality by the expediency of smuggling in objective morality.

The only way that could be necessary is if, in terms of pure definition, objective morality does not refer to obedience to the commands of God or agreement with the nature of God.

What is left for objective morality to mean? Objective morality means that which is objectively right. Objectively right, then, can only mean that which agrees with objective morality. In terms of definition, Objective Morality only means itself.

This means that objective morality has no obligation to agree with what helps us or what avoids hurting us or have us in mind at all. It is so disconnected that, even were it to exist, it has no obligation to exist in a state that, for us functionally, in any way differs from its own nonexistence.

What's left isn't in the definition, isn't in anything owned by objective morality, but is only subjective, our emotional associations. Objective morality would make us objectively right and them objectively wrong, thus making us objectively better and... and... nothing else. That objective rightness and objective betterness would not achieve anything. It wouldn't even achieve their agreement with our objective rightness or betterness as they could as easily believe the same of themselves.

The emotional associations are pure egotism.

Subjective morality, on the other hand, being within the mind about the object, refers to our thoughts, our values, our considerations, our ideals. That, regardless of our inability to be objectively right against the objective wrongness of others, means something. It means our thoughts, values, considerations, and ideals.

This doesn't exempt anybody from judgment. Therefore, we cannot say that entity X is objectively moral, therefore their every action lives up to high morality. We must challenge their actions to see if they live up to *our* morality.

If you still disagree, let me submit a thought experiment. Imagine that you received a full knowledge of objective morality. (No, you are not tricked by Satan and are not given any other out from the thought experiment.) In your understanding of this objective morality, the right thing to do would be to capture the next person you meet and torture that person, cause as much suffering as possible. The objectively right ends of that torture would be yet more suffering and more suffering and more suffering.

Would you do it? Or, would you choose your own values over an objective morality that is so opposed to your values?

Comments

[veryrarelystable.blogspot.co.nz]

One could, however, have morality that was "objective" in the sense of being intersubjective. It could be the case that there are some principles which apply to achieving, if not any conceivable goal, at least any plausible goal. I would argue (http://veryrarelystable.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/imponderable-i-morality.html) that one such principle is "Promote, and earn, mutual trust."

[wingedbeast]

That principle, while it would be objectively true that some actions better fit that principle than others, would still be subjectively chosen.

My argument is that the fact that it is subjectively chosen, rather than objectively the right principle, is the more meaningful possibility.