There Is No Point To Life Without Objective Morality

On this episode of The Line, our host @ShannonQ is once again joined by Paul from Paulogia, for an episode of "God Dang It All, Time To Call Shannon & Paul!" Sven from Seattle called in to argue that their is no point to life without objective morality.

Support Paulogia at

Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast

Follow Paulogia at

[ACallToReason]

If there is no universal reference point for the cardinal directions we utilize here on Earth, why would anyone ever bother traveling west for a weekend at the beach?

It's the same issue, really. We don't need to have an ultimate reference for any given system in order to validate a local one.

[tonydarcy]

The caller seems to think that without Jesus, humans can't have empathy for each other. Considering that Homo Sapiens has been around for about 200, 000 years or so, I just wonder how we got through the first 198, 000 years without empathy, before Jesus arrived on the scene ? The caller evidently doesn't get the fact that we are *social* animals, and that without that *society* we wouldn't be here at all to have abstract discussions about human feelings and behaviours.

[Emberbro]

It’s weird how often this kind of conversation dissolves into lazy semantics.

[fepeerreview]

Hi. I like how some apologists say things like "evolutionists" can't have "objective morality". You've got to have God's Law or something.
Then you get into discussions about Old Testament things like slavery, the taking of female prisoners of war for rape, etc. And they say, "Oh no, the New Testament changed all that." (It didn't but that's beside the point.)
So ... God's laws for humanity changed drastically from OT to NT? How does that work with "objective morality"? How was slavery and rape alright in 500 BCE and not alright 600 years later?

[gklgspy]

The world is as it is. Enjoy it while you're here or don't.

[vinny]

First: I love the point that even *if* there is a god who has created some absolute morality; we have no way of knowing what it is.

Second Why do believers put so much emphasis on morallity when they absolutely refuse to follow the moral rules of their own holy books? They claim that god is the one who decides what is moral but the only communiction they claim to have from god is the bible and that tells you to kill disobedient children and luckily there are hardly any people these days who think that's a moraly good thing to do.

Why pretend that you believe the bible when you discard it at will, with absolutely no fear of divine restribution? Only a select few maniacal believers are actually scared of hell, the rest literally could not care less. They love to tell other people that they will g to hell, but they themselves don't consider it a possibility for a second.

If you are going to bring up morality then just... go away... morality is 100% subjective no matter how you define it. Even if you put it as well-being: killing me is bad for my wellbeing unles I am suffering unbearable pain so... just... go away with all yur talk about morality, it's all one big waste of time.

[roxannerios]

Guitar Eddie's take: I can be empathetic towards a cobra - understanding why he must envenomate to survive (we've all to to eat); but, I'm not going to try to get chummy with him and be his lunch. At the same time, I can also have empathy for a psychopath and understand why he does what he does, but have enough discernment to know what he does is evil.

I've often heard from fundamentalist Christians who believe that their belief in a god is the only reason they have any sense of morality. That's when I start to be afraid of them. Why? Because they've just admitted that they are no better than recalcitrant children who have to have a (cosmic) parent standing behind them with a belt to them in line.

[MrCanis]

I love my children very much, they love me very much. I want to support them as much and as long as possible in their lives. This gives a lot of meaning. And this is only a part of my existence.

No god needed.

[dhwyll]

"Empathy" is the ability to understand someone else's feelings.

"Sympathy" is sharing those feelings.

I can empathize with someone who is scared and lashes out, but that doesn't mean I sympathize with their lashing out.

[nagranoth_]

The way these callers think is just sad and disturbing...

[zenmite]

If Hitler was only looking out for the good of his own people and this is supposed to be an example of subjective, relative morality...I would point out that Yahweh's order to exterminate the Canaanites (and others) has the same morality. Yahweh was only looking out for His people. Ethics and morality are when you think about what you did, or should do. It's all rooted in abstract thought and reasoning. Actual compassion is present action, not just thought. Having this special 'objective morality' doesn't seem to make those who espouse it any more moral or compassionate. If you have empathy, all the ethical rules and ideals are only guides at best. If Hitler had actual empathy for others, his actions would have been different. Same with Yahweh. Both are ideological monsters, imo.

[basildraws]

perfect example of theism rotting one's brain. This guy has no idea what he thinks or believes, what the consequences are of his conflicting beliefs, but needs desperately for someone to give him a reason to live.
Sven, you'll never see these issues clearly until you remove the god(s)-coloured glasses.

[superfly]

If your step-counting watch isn’t counting your steps, what’s the point of taking a nice walk? Is that what he’s saying?

[Uriel]

In the post-enlightenment conversation, Sartre established _existence precedes essence, _ the notion that we find a groove and do our thing (within, what we assume, is a mutualist society). It's awesome if society agrees you're useful and pays you enough to sustain yourself, was good enough for plenty of post-enlightment philosophers, I guess.

But society isn't mutualist, and plenty of us don't find our groove. A lot of industries are abusive or subverted in order to drive immense profits to a small elite, which raises questions as to whether helping this society grow and expand is a good thing.

In my own case, I grew up watching the US space program (my dad is a literal rocket scientist, now retired) and dreamed of space travel and colonies on other worlds and post-scarcity communism in which everyone ate, dressed and was sheltered for free, and were left just to make great art. I'd learn in my adult life that space colonization was decades, maybe centuries away, and we are polluting ourselves so fast we might drive ourselves extinct, or at least nearly-extinct (_Mad Max_ but with fewer cars and more cannibalism) long before we get there. Our elites seem to be glad to burn society rather than give up their power for something more egalitarian that benefits everyone.

Curiously the majority of Christians are on the side of pretending society is smaller, and either purging or exploiting the Other. It's not that the alleged objective morality that is expressed in the bibles or by examples of God's commands and action is actually right or good. The UN Office of Human Rights has long charters on what is appropriate or not, and what rights and provisions every human being should have access to, but that was assembled across time and histories of atrocities. And the international community still cares more for profit and preserving power heirarchies.

So naturalism results in existential horror, but I don't think it's any worse existential horror than the Christian Cinematic Universe, or for that matter, the Lovecraftian Cinematic Universe. Even Buddha says life is just suffering. But Camus gives me the benefit of the doubt. Even as I resent the absurd, by trying to live with it, I am doing the thing. For me it means petting my cat and appreciating my loved ones (and occasionally ranting my truth on the internet) while watching for something I can do to make a greater difference, and being okay if that opportunity never comes.

[pwoods]

There is no point to life without Shannon and Paul. I'm pretty

[RickyisSwan]

Lots of unnecessary words salad from both sides. Cutting to the chase it’s the old, “how can you have morals without god?” Well come to Australia and see how. Latest figures are that we only have 43% christians. The majority of Australians are clean living, family orientated good people. We don’t run around killing or harming each other. We have a good lifestyle and we don’t need a 3000 year old book to tell us how to behave. The whole argument is totally ridiculous beyond words.

[Awakened_Mucacha]

I'm blunt. So anyone who knows me would probably understand my answer, but I'll say it here and hope people get it. "Get over yourself and live with a smile." There is no such thing as objective morality.

Also, the Hilter thing. Dude, I can want to understand how someone goes that route because I realize no one thinks of themselves as a bad guy. Yet hold the same position that what he did is fucked up. Why do people act like those two positions are incompatible? If, I understand why he did, what he did then I can try to prevent circumstances that may lead to it again. Like no shit. If I just say Lol, no villain guy bad, then I don't do anything.

I can think of someone as a piece of shit and realize they are still human, basically.

[SadisticSenpai]

Sven really doesn't seem to understand what empathy and sympathy is. It also seems that he's still carrying a lot of Christian baggage with him. There's a reason ancient Greek philosophers argued over objective morality and whether it existed - clearly the idea that there isn't any objective morality isn't a new one.

[vXx]

Dont trust anyone who claims to be "very high on the empathic level". They clearly love the smell of their own farts.

[paulfinkelstein]

Even if there is an objective morality, you still have to rely on your subjective judgment to identify it.