Objective Morality

 I've run across an interesting discussion on the internet regarding objective morality. A Christian argued for the existence of an objective morality. It was to maximize the good. He saw this as the reduction of suffering. Another Christian rightly pointed out that his version of objective morality depended on a statement of values. Reducing the amount of pain and suffering in the world is a goal that one could adopt, but other individuals might adopt other goals. The choice of one goal over another is subjective.

I would like to add a point. In order to state that reducing the amount of suffering in the world constitutes an objective morality we would need an objective way of aggregating the pain of various individuals.

Objective means having an existence outside of mind. Since pain, suffering and happiness have no existence outside of mind, it would be odd to define objective morality in terms of these. However, I'm not sure this is a valid argument against this as an objective morality. For instance, if you drink alcohol this will impair your mental functioning. Although mental functioning has no existence independent of mind, I suspect that most people would consider the fact that alcohol impairs mental functioning is part of objective reality.

However, maybe our intuition on this subject is in error. In a philosophical discussion we may have to depart from common usage because we will be more interested in having terms that are rigorously defined. Perhaps in common usage the fact that alcohol impairs mental functioning should be seen as objective, where as in a philosophical discussion it would not.

I find myself compelled to take the position that there is no morality independent of mind, which is to say that objective morality doesn't exist. By morality we mean to uphold certain actions to standards. Neither the actions nor the standards would exist if there were no minds. We don't hold a stone to moral standards, and at least so far as we are able to discern they don't hold us to any standards.

Saying morality is independent of mind is different from saying that it is independent of my mind. There are some things that are independent of any individual mind, but not independent of mind in general. To say that morality is subjective is simply to say that if no mind existed, there would be no morality. That's very different from saying that when I talk about right and wrong, I'm just expressing my own personal opinion. I'm talking about standards that have an existence that is independent of my mind.

By saying that something is wrong, I am stating that it is worthy of blame. This is to say that a rational being will want to apply blame for the action in question. Blame is applied to adversely effect a reputation. Hence there will need to be at least three individuals in order to assign blame. There will be the actor, the one assigning the blame, and the one to whom the assignment is expressed. In order to adversely effect a reputation, there must be some individual other than the actor and the assigner whose opinion of the actor is to be diminished.

The blame will only stick if it is assigned on the basis of moral and ethical values that are shared by the assigner of blame and the one to whom such assignment is conveyed. By saying that an action is wrong I am appealing to a set of moral and ethical values that exists independent of my mind. I generally believe that these moral and ethical values are ones that I share with the listener. If the listener does not share my values, I may choose another listener.

The moral and ethical values of different humans will tend to be similar in many ways. This is because it will not be effective to assign blame and credit in a manner that fails to effect the reputation in the desired manner. People will want to make these assignments according to commonly circulating moral and ethical values. Each society will have a prevailing set of standards. In addition to this, all humans are related. Each of us may have some tendencies to make these assignments in a certain way as a result of heredity.

If we come into contact with extraterrestrial intelligence, then there may even be similarities between our moral and ethical values and those of the aliens. This is because biological and cultural evolution have both played some role in forming those moral and ethical values. Evolution would tend to produce creatures that value their own lives, for example. We would be unlikely to find aliens who approved of murder.

Now, if I am right about the nature of moral and ethical values, what does this say about God and religion? What values would be possessed by an immaterial and indestructible mind? According to Christian mythology, we have been created in the image of God. Atheists tend to believe it was the other way around, except that it was the concept that our ancestors created rather than God. However, if both humans and aliens are the destructible products of evolution, then this is something that we have in common that God, if He exists, does not share. Hence God's standards may be more alien to us than those of the alien.

The philosopher, Harry Binswanger, presents an argument that only evolution can produce goal seeking behavior. If a being were immaterial and indestructible, then it couldn't be rational. There would be no goal that it could pursue that would help it. Since nothing could destroy it, it couldn't pursue its continued existence. Every choice of behavior would yield the same probability of success, namely one hundred percent.

Arguments about biblical atrocities are relevant, because they appeal to a set of moral and ethical values that we all share, one that is quite likely shared by all rational beings. If an individual believes that a voice he hears within his head that tells him to commit genocide might be the voice of God rather than being an indication that he is in need of medical attention, then this makes that individual worse as an associate.