The mistake in the OP is to think in terms of objective/subjective rather than is/ought. — Banno

Putnam, following Quine said that is and ought cannot be disentangled since fact and value interpenetrate.

Ethics was about what was good and wrong within the natural order of the universe. — Dharmi

That strikes me as confused.

There is a difference between what is the case and what ought be the case. This is a difference in direction of fit. You can examine the world and change what you believe in order to match it; but ethics is about changing the world to match what you believe.

Not to the ancients it wasn't. Ethics was about the way the world was and conforming ourselves to that eternal order.

That analysis goes much further back than Quine.

The OP formulates its question in terms of the subjective and the objective. That approach is fraught with misunderstanding. Much better to put the issue in terms of what one is to do next.

You talk as if "the ancients" were all in agreement; and also as if they had some authority beyond mere precedence.

That analysis goes much further back than Quine. — Banno

If you’re referring to Kant , the Quinean formulation amounts to a critique of Kant’s
idealism.

No, I had Hume in mind.

Morality being subjective can serve as its own moral guideline.

The harder question would be, why anyone would be moral without believing in a religion that rewards (or punishes) them for it.

Not in every particular, but in general yes.

For those who can only think in terms of "...isms", I'm saying that the OP sets out ethics as if it were only deontology, and further that virtue ethics provides a more useful analysis.

The harder question would be, why anyone would be moral without believing in a religion that rewards (or punishes) them for it. — Tzeentch

A religious person must choose to follow what they think is the will of god, or to turn against it. They might think they have avoided making a choice, but they are fooling themselves.

Doing what is right for fear of punishment is ethics for three-year-olds. Adults take responsibility.

Doing what is right for fear of punishment is ethics for three-year-olds. Adults take responsibility. — Banno

You have obviously not done any time in a Supermax prison - not many 3 year-olds there. You do what you are told or suffer the consequences. If god is a totalitarian bully and Mafia-style thug (and as written this is his character) then the divine command theory makes sense. Yes, it is God treating human beings like children or prisoners.

Of course the pious believer will say something like - I want to do what pleases god, goodness radiates from his nature and I seek to follow this.

The harder question would be, why anyone would be moral without believing in a religion that rewards (or punishes) them for it. — Tzeentch

The jails are full of vicious criminals who believe in god. There is nothing intrinsic to the idea which makes people behave ethically.

not many 3 year-olds there. — Tom Storm

Yes, there are. They just have older bodies.

But you entirely missed the point that sometimes what you ought do is to put yourself in danger. Indeed, you do not even address the issue.

No the point I was addressing was your reflection about divine command theory.

...and what was it you think you said?

I said it.

Doing what is right for fear of punishment is ethics for three-year-olds. Adults take responsibility. — Banno

People who live in fear do not take responsibility. They live in an altered state of awareness.

One problem that anyone would have in considering this question is that they already have a religion-based system of morality which is religiously based. I may be an atheist now, but I was taught Christian morality as a child. It is as difficult to lose that religiously-based morality as it is to lose my native language. Short of a bullet to the head, both are permanent. That said, people can and may alter their religiously based morality.

My understanding of morality is that it is intended to reduce the friction and conflict among people who are consistently fractious. Secular morality can ignore the god-man relationship which religious morality attends to.

Minimizing conflict among people is an objective advantage. An orderly society allows individuals to conduct their lives as they see fit (up to the point of interfering with other people's lives). Subjectively, individuals prefer to go about their lives without excessive disruption. We do not flourish when we are constantly disrupted (like, if you keep running over the tomato plants, you will get zero tomatoes).

not many 3 year-olds there.
— Tom Storm

Yes, there are. They just have older bodies. — Banno

This raises another point about morality: Three-year olds learn to obey their parents because they fear that their parents will punish them. Sounds crude, but it works because the brain is so structured that fear (limbic system) and proper behavior (frontal cortex) are linked. When that link fails to form, the result is sociopathy or psychopathy.

The 3 year old's fear turns into the adult conscience. Conscience isn't 100% reliable, but it is reliable enough to result in most people (75%? 80%? 90%? ...) conducting their lives "morally".

Morals, of course, can backfire when humans start killing each other to enforce their morality.

There once was a — Banno

Dammit, I was hoping a limerick was in the offing. Well, I'll try one then.

There once was was a species called human,
Who thought God cared what they were doin',
But the truth is He said that "For me, they've been dead
Since the Garden of Eden stopped bloomin'."

My understanding of morality is that it is intended to reduce the friction and conflict among people who are consistently fractious. Secular morality can ignore the god-man relationship which religious morality attends to. — Bitter Crank

I think that is a legitimate position. I have often thought that the problem is this word 'morality' it contains so much baggage.

It can also be seen as a code of conduct that is largely shared by a community or culture. Codes are probably given a kick start by our apparent capacity for empathy.

It can also be seen as a code of conduct that is largely shared by a community or culture — Tom Storm

Yes. Morality is individually applied but reflects the morality of the community. Sometimes individuals develop deviations from the standard morality, such as radical pacifism--rejection of all war, including just war. We may be able to do that when we bear the cost of the deviation. The pacifist pays the price. The community will reject moral deviations that impose costs on the society--fraud, arson, rape, bloody murder, riot, and so on.

Gay men once violated the standard Euro-American morality by engaging in deviant sexual behavior. Gay sex was not tolerated, even though homosexuality imposed no cost on society, except that it offended society, and by persistently violating morality homosexuals undermined the authority of social enforcers.

Sometimes the morality of communities imposes costs on individuals -- think of all the costs imposed by racial discrimination--costs for which society has generally had little interest in compensating. Blacks and other minorities have had to work very hard over long periods of time to change the operation of community morality (and have not been successful in many cases).

:up:

:up:

:up:

:smirk:

Let's agree to disagree on the historicity of the Torah and provenance of Mosaic Law; it's a minor aside which distracts from my point: in the last several millennia, there has not been a single society of modern humans without implicit – unwritten – morals (i.e. customary ways of being, as Banno puts it, "a decent person", etc), and most of which without Abrahamic – "divine command" – religion/s to monumentalize explicit "codes" for morals already extant and working.

Back to the OP:

A corollary to Plato's Euthyphro which is germaine to the OP's question is this:

Did the ancient Hebrews obey HaShem's "commandments" because HaShem said it's moral to do so?

An affirmative answer begs the question posed by the Euthyphro dilemma; thus, like sawing-off a branch while you're sitting on it, religion cannot be used to justify (or subvert) morality.

Or did the ancient Hebrews obey HaShem's "commandments" because they judged it moral to do so?

Ethical reasoning and traditions of civil disobedience begin here. In other words, morality can be used to justify (or subvert) religion.

:mask:

Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Obedience is doing what you are told regardless of what is right. — H.L. Mencken

"... for good people to do evil – that takes religion." ~Steven Weinberg

"Faith involves the teleological suspension of the
ethical ..." ~Søren Kierkegaard

(re: A '"sacred" ends justifies – permits – any "profane" means' Theodicy :death: )

Most Christians accept evolution. — Tom Storm

Then how can they possibly believe in God? Metaphorically?

Why don't you ask them? Christianity is more complex and subtle than you might imagine.

Why don't you ask them? Christianity is more complex and subtle than you might imagine. — Tom Storm

I asked them. They aren't open to discussion.

What need is there to justify morality, by the way?

Questioner: "Prove that you should be moral, Ciceronianus!"
Ciceronianus: "Why should I do that?"
/.../ — Ciceronianus the White

Unfortunately it is much easier to follow rules than to engage in self reflection and improvement. Especially when you can pay for a lawyer. Or Bishop.

And so we have a common way of thinking about ethics that is assumed in Franz Liszt's OP, where the key question is not "how can I become a better person?" but "Which rules should I follow?"

Can you justify morality without religion? The notion that one might need to justify doing the right thing is ridiculous. — Banno

For example, when I was a vegetarian, a Christian made clear to me that I was wrong to be a vegetarian, and he said, and this is from memory, but almost verbatim, that I am allowed to be a vegetarian, provided I concur that it is wrong to be one.
I kid you not.
I was so taken aback by what he said that I remembered it.
And this isn't the only such instance.
As long as I can remember, many people in my life demanded me to justify my moral principles.
And just look at forums like this: Posters demand justification of some other poster's morality.


Personal anecdotes aside, I don't see how one would be in a position of not feeling compelled to justify one's morality. It seems it takes a pretty strong, solid ego/sense of self to feel above such need for justification.

Doing what is right for fear of punishment is ethics for three-year-olds. Adults take responsibility. — Banno

To which theists tend to respond along the lines that one ought to do what God commands not out of fear of punishment, but out of love of God -- that this is how one takes reponsibility.

In the same vein, people agree that there is such a thing as the familiar and the alien, the understandable and the strange. The problem is that morality , and its judgments of what is right and what is wrong , generally comes down to these dichotomies, so that morality is just another word for the drive to enforce
conformity. — Joshs

Absolutely!

But you could justify it to yourself, and I don't know if most people really need a philosophical justification to do good things anyway. — Dharmi

Since there is such moral diversity in the world, in order to navigate said diversity, one might acutely feel the need to justify one's sense of morality.

Further, other people may be intolerant of one and demand that one justifies one's morality to them. Such as when Christians demand that non-Christians justify themselves to them.

I don't see how one would be in a position of not feeling compelled to justify one's morality. — baker

Why must I justify the fact that I won't kill some random stranger? Do you believe I should do that? Do you think I must have some reason not to kill some random stranger to refrain from doing so? If so, explain why. If not, don't ask me for a justification.