Argument of Objective Morality?
The argument from "Objective Morality" states that since humans have some very basic moralities that are universal to every culture, that must mean that God (Jehovah), must've put them there.
Which Morals are Universal?
Well, the first question we should ask is "Which morals are universal?". We can find only a few morals that almost all human cultures share: Respect the lives and property of your kinsmen and protect your women, children and society. Christians will argue that this universality must come from Jehovah but let's look at them individually.
Thou shalt not Murder
Every civilization, even those that engaged in human sacrifice, did not allow their citizens to randomly murder each other. This is just part of every pack animal's instinct since murdering your own kind will destroy your society and therefore your species. Wolves, Baboons, Hyenas, Vultures, Ants and Termites do not kill and feed off the weaker members of their own societies. When a wolf or Komodo Dragon gets old it is usually left outside the pack to be killed by something else. If a species did eat their own kind, the species would swiftly die off as the adults ate their children and the stronger gender ate the weaker gender. Yes, Polar Bear males try to eat their young but are chased off by the Polar Bear females. This is an exception that proves the rule - if the female wasn't born with this morality, she would allow the male to simply eat the cubs at which point the species would die out. This morality, better described as an instinct, is ingrained in the human subconscious in the same way as paternal and reproductive instincts. Any society that would attempt to monkey with this very basic rule would implode and be crushed by a smarter society.
Thou shalt not Steal
Have you ever tried to take a bowl of food away from a dog? As soon as you hear the growl, you know that the dog has just said "Thou shalt not Steal". This is as universal a morality as commandments against murder and is found in animal societies as certainly as it is found in human society. Just because some squirrel prophet didn't come down a squirrel moutain with stone tablets doesn't mean that squirrels feel free to steal food from each other's dens. If a cougar sees another cougar trying to steal its kill; it doesn't stop to consider the impact of objective morality, it growls at the intruder. Humans also object to their possessions being taken so a system had to be made where we could all agree on what was whose - this system is called CIVILIZATION. Any society that did not regulate possessions in someway would devolve into anarchy or ochlocracy as the most powerful families or religions or gangs would take the possessions of others. Having a universally accepted method of managing transactions of personal property is the backbone of civilization!
Thou shalt Not Deceive
Uniquely human - humans do spend a lot of time lying, sometimes just to save the feelings of others. Still, all humans understand that a liar is untrusted and has few friends. This means that all intelligent humans; atheist, Jew or Christian will be very careful about their lies so that they will not seem untrustworthy. An untrusted human does not compete well in society.
Thou shalt Protect The Herd and The Weak
This is another standard societal instinct - even Wildebeast will form a circle to keep predators from the cows and calves. A vixen will keep her cubs deep in her lair protecting them to the death. A bird will feign a broken wing and risk death to save her chicks. Humans, like these animals, instinctively protect the weaker members of the society. Men are the more expendable gender as ten women can reproduce just as often with five men as fifteen so that's why males place their bodies in harm's way. This appears to contradict survival instinct in the male but societal instinct can be just as strong or stronger. Imagine which society would survive - one where men place themselves in harm's way or one where men run from danger? Obviously a society with brave men will outcompete a society with cautious men. Natural selection.
Survival Morality vs Subjective Morality
So what we find is that those moralities that are universal (objective)are simply those moralities required for the survival of humans and human civilization. These moralities are shared by humans and animals and lack of these moralities would cause the implosion of a civlization. Now let's look at "subjective morality". Subjective morality is that morality which is added on top of basic, secular morality and not necessary for the survival of a civilization. These 'moralities' change from civilization to civilization and from time to time: Polygamy, Slavery, Tolerance, Homosexuality, War, Death Penalty, Gambling, Interracial Marriage, Incest, Marrying Minors, Subjugation of Women, Human Sacrifice, Animal Sacrifice, Public Executions, Torture etc.
Jehovah vs Instinct
I believe we have two choices in this debate; either some of our basic moralities are simply instinct or they are written into our subconscious by Jehovah. If these moralities are instinct then the only moralities we will find as instinct are those necessary for the survival of the organism and its society. If these moralities are written in our brains by Jehovah then we should expect to find all sorts of universal moralities that are not survival based. We would expect to find cultures all over the world automatically giving obescience to a single Creator god that does not allow the creation of idols. We would find universal condemnation of working on the Sabbath, homosexuality, eating lobsters and wearing two different types of fabrics at the same time. Had Jehovah actually written commandments five and seven into our subconscious, why not one through four? Why don't people automatically know that Jehovah is the one and only God, that we should not make idols to him, take his name in vain or work on the Sabbath? The fact that we do NOT find Jehovah's code imprinted universally in all human instinct whereas survival based morality is; is pretty good evidence against this god's existence.
Christian Q&A
I've reserved the rest of this article for real Q&A I've fielded from Christians.
If human morality isn't handed down by GOD than how do you explain the bravery of firemen, police and soldiers in direct defiance of their survival instincts?
Altruism is a natural instinct found in most herd, pack animals allowing the herd to survive through the selfless behavior of one or more organisms. Ants give their lives for the colony. Some bees spend their whole lives caring for smaller bees. A dog will risk its life to save its master. A society that does not include the socialized instinct of altruism would be outcompeted by one that does. It could be argued that the Spartans had little in the way of altruism yet they were outcompeted by the Greeks which saw altruism as a virtue. As far as men risking their lives? Which society is more likely to survive: One where the men are courageous and protect their society or one where the men run away hoping the women and children will slow down the attackers? No society known for its cowardly men can possibly survive therefore the trait cannot be passed on! Simple natural selection!
God makes sense of objective moral values in the world. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point.
No atheist will concede this! Here's a simple test, try to take a water dish away from your dog. Your dog will probably growl - he has just created the commandment 'Thou shalt not steal'. Did GOD give this commandment to your dog or is it instinctive? All cultures and civilizations including those who have had no contact with Israel have created laws for people to interact with other people. Did God give his law to the Greeks? Did God give his law to the Navaho? Morality and law are the natural evolution of human to human social contact and can be traced from civilization to civilization. Old, bad laws and morality fall away while better laws and morality are adopted. As a good example: "tolerance" has evolved as a moral virtue and Christians and Jews practice this even though INtolerance was the law of God practiced openly in his theocracies. Slavery has evolved as a moral evil even though Jehovah openly commanded his people to take and use slaves. In fact most of the LAWS of JEHOVAH, maybe 98% filled with mythology, savagery and irrelevance are certainly not followed today. This demonstrates that the laws were failures and that not even the people who should be following them will touch them.
We are not talking about laws - man-made or God directed. We are talking about moral imperatives that we know intutively to exist. If you disagree, please provide me some examples of past societies that engaged in the following: peeing on 5 year old children, then rubbing crap in their eyes, then rapin them until they bleed, then peeling their skin off, then rubbing salt all over their bodies, then slicing them into 100 pieces, all while laughing and singing and hugging each other, honestly believing that their actions were GOOD.
Societies exist to preserve and enhance the life and productivity of the people in the society. A society so stupid, so retarded that it would kill or disable its own children would implode and be outcompeted by a neighboring society. Note that even bears and cougars take care of their young. Now as to your contention that societies would behave in completely random and bizarre ways without God - I suppose we're just going to deny a little thing called a BRAIN. Societies that create good moralities and work well together do well and prosper. A retarded society that would dance around bean poles while eating their clothing because God didn't tell them any different would get stomped on and conquered by a neighboring society. Now let's please get to so-called 'objective morality'. Tell me that in all ages and in all times the following moralities were universally shunned or accepted: sex with minors, polygamy, incest, human sacrifice, slavery, torture, female subjugation, wars of aggression, public executions, killing of infidels, mudering an unfaithful spouse, killing a bad child. I could go on and on: Morality is based on what has worked in the past and the past traditions of that society not because some god handed down rules to some tribesman. Certainly even the most ardent Christian can understand that any society that did nothing about murder or theft would soon fall into anarchy or ochlocracy. Certainly even the most ardent Christian can understand that any society that did nothing to protect its women or children would die off.
Be careful, because it doesn't matter how outlandish my example. If all societies would coonsider this behavior to be WRONG, then we have an OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUE, which cannot be descibed away by the societal development argument, especially given the disconnect (by reason of time and geography) between ancient societies. Just because societies viewpoints change on various issues, such as slavery, in no way defeats or hinders the argument that objective moral values exist - it just shows that those viewpoints clearly did not deal with objective moral values.
I really don't understand this argument at all. Of course there are universal traits a society must adopt to survive and all societies will either create these traits or die off. All societies have some kind of standing army. This isn't some dictate from a god but just simple, logical self-preservation. Laws against very, very obvious misbehavior like murder, theft and rape would be universal for exactly the same reason. No society that would allow its citizens to indulge in these destructive behaviors could survive. The REAL test of universal morality is NOT in morality that is necessary for the existence of the society. The REAL test is when we look at laws that do not dictate the rise or fall of the civilization. For example: Polygamy is a MORALITY that has been either adopted or shunned almost randomly throughout the world. Up to very recently tolerance would be considered weak and perhaps treacherous and is now accepted as a virtue. Maybe only in the last century has marrying a child {12 year old} been considered weird and bizarre. Homosexuals used to be killed but now you get extra moralilty points if you tolerate them. It is simply obvious that morality evolves based on societal evolution.
Once again, you are bluring issues. Who said anything about LAWS.
Laws become morality. The law of The State becomes the morality whereby the people of The State live. If the law said that prostitution was legal (another changing morality) then it would not be immoral to visit a prostitute. The old laws of the Hebrew theocracies have been recorded and people who worship its tribal god will sometimes, sort of, live by them as WELL as the new laws of America. According to American morality, killing infidels is not moral even though Jehovah thinks it is. Jehovah worshipers may not work on Sunday even though America says it's okay.
Just because some baptist minister believes that dancing is objectively wrong does not mean that there are no objective moral values. It just means that the baptist minister believes such action is objectively morally wrong. Additionally, your statement that "all" moral values would have to be "set" for their to exist "objective moral values" is without merit and is unsupportable. We are not robots. And we certainly cannot mandate to God how to create or operate the world. Once again, just because I say that X is an objective moral value, and you say that X is not an objective moral value, or just because Greece 2000BC says male prostitution is objectively okay and Greece 2000AD says male prostitution is objectively wrong, in no way hinders or defeats the argument that there are objective moral values. Such situations just bring into dispute whether the subject actions are objectively right or wrong.
This basically proves my point. Morality that is not fixated on survival, changes. There are two (probably more) levels of morality. At the top is the basic morality that humans, dogs and cats live by. "Respect the lives and property of your fellow kinsmen and protect your progeny." Hell Cougars and Wolves live by that! If a Cougar tried to steal another Cougar's dinner, do you think it would pause and reflect on objective morality? This is just simple instinct, part of every creature with herding or pack instincts. These basic ideas of course become part of every law and morality because, well it's just instinct. Any society that would monkey with these very basic tenets and make murder or theft legal would simply implode. This has nothing to do with deity - it's just common sense. If there WAS a deity and it had some moral agenda then YES we would instinctively know that things like working on the sabbath, wearing two different types of fabric, eating lobsters etc would be wrong. Instead what we find is that the only moralilty ingrained in all civilizations is the morality necessary for survival.
Your claim that "[i]f morality is 'objective' than all aspects of morality would be set and universal throughout all time and space..." simply is not logical. What is your basis for such a conclusion because it does not logically follow. Why does it have to be that way?
Because either Jehovah handed down all morality or nothing. Why would we be ingrained with just three or four basic bits of morality when Jehovah wants us to follow hundreds of moral codes?
Atheists must understand that Christians do not live by secular morality, they live by Christian morality
Christians have to realize that they have abandoned much of their Bible oriented morality and chosen secular morality instead. Is owning property good? Well the early Christians would chide you for not selling all your property and giving it to the collective so no one would be poor. Problem is... this model has never worked so Christians generally don't follow it - they consider capitalism to be 'good'.
Let's read the following passage from Deuteronomy... Would any Jew or Christian do this today? Is there anything in the New Testament that tells us that we should no longer follow the Deuteronomical codes?
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 3:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
See - no Christian or Jew today would KILL a proselytizing friend. That civilization model (rabid, homicidal intolerance) didn't work so that behavior is now considered a vice instead of a virtue.
I'm happy to say that today's Jew or Judeo Christian in SPITE of the Old Testament:
Does not wage wars of aggression.
Feels that slavery is wrong.
Tolerates other political and religious views.
Charges interest on borrowed money.
Has contact with menstruating women.
Allows people to work on the Sabbath without killing them.
I'm happy to say that today's Christian in SPITE of the New Testament:
Does not hate capitalism.
Gets a job.
Defends himself and his family.
What is funny is that Christians HAVE to live a life completely opposite of Jesus to run a reasonable society. Christians (unlike Jesus) arm themselves, get jobs, get married, kick social parasites to the curb instead of giving them their coats, become involved in society, save money and try to put enough away so they can leave something to their children Jesus - like Mao, Marx etc was a philosophical failure.
It's simple trial and error - as humans we keep what works and discard what doesn't... easy!