Morality, or lack of it..

[JCA]

I keep reading something here that I find a little 'unreal'. It has been addressed, but for some reason get's ignored, or forgotten..

I'm talking about the discovery of 'morality', and who has it and where it comes from. Too often I see Christians make the claim that without God or religion, there can be no morality.. but I find this to be an un-truth.

Morality itself is actually easy to come by.. and most people will agree on some of the basic findings of such 'morality'. A basic moral thought is "thou shalt not kill/murder". This does NOT need God to make good moral sense.. it is founded upon the fact that it is not something we would like done to ourselves.. and most moral issues are the same.

God enhances morality.. I totally agree.. as God gives us something to work towards a 'moral' life. Those who do not belive in Christianity, or a God, are not bereft of 'morals'.. although one could argue that they have less reason to BE moral.

In fact, if you look at the 10 Commandments, you can see that they ALL contain things that we would not like done to ourselves, and so are reflected back as not to be done to others. The idea that it takes God to understand these simple codes, seems a little farfatched.

Anyway, this has probably all been covered before.. I just wanted to bring it up.. again :teeth:

IN Love and Peace

JCA

[prgmrdave]

Today @ 02:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115265#post115265)
JCA:

Too often I see Christians make the claim that without God or religion, there can be no morality...

Those who do not belive in Christianity, or a God, are not bereft of 'morals'.. although one could argue that they have less reason to BE moral...

JCA

I agree completely (even the parts I snipped :smile:). I would add, however, that the belief in God that I share with another gives us much more a common ground to discuss moral standards.

Without God, leaving nothing but moral relatism, any of us might say to another, "It's all well and good that you find [list of moral offenses] offensive, but why should the fact that you (and possibly many others) personally find these offenses offensive place a burden on me to abstain from them if I do not likewise find them offensive?"

Note well, that even though I do believe in God, and that He exemplifies and commands a moral standard, I do not believe that confers on me any right to compel anyone else to that moral standard (excepting, of course, anyone for whom I am given direct responsibility, such as my children). If you do not believe in God, you have bigger things to think about than what I think your behavior ought to be; if you do, we have a common standard we can discuss, but that's all.

JCA, here's pearls for a great thread!

[Undomiel]

Somewhere along the line someone said, "This stuff about being chaste till marriage and adultery and so forth, is stupid. Sex is fun. What's the big deal?" And the opposing viewpoint said, "Because having wanton sex is dangerous and considered a sin by God."

Why did God think it was a sin to have wanton sex with whomever? Because He wanted us to all be virgins and eunuchs? I don't think so. It was a moral code installed in the judaic faith for the safe and continued perpetuation of the human species. Most moral codes in the bible have the same foundation - the happy, healthy perpetuation of humanity as a species on planet earth. Consider:

Free sex has succeeded in providing the perfect environment for disease and/or diseases which could potentially wipe out the human species.

Murder is rampant.

Theft is rampant.

Adultery is rampant.

Porno is rampant.

Violence is rampant.

Pollution is rampant.

Etc, etc, etc.

The end result is not a pretty picture. The more moral codes our cultures are convinced are not useful on a major scale, the closer we move towards self-inflicted annihilation as a species.

[JCA]

Today @ 05:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115274#post115274)
Undomiel:


Murder is rampant.

Theft is rampant.

Adultery is rampant.

Porno is rampant.

Violence is rampant.

Pollution is rampant.

Etc, etc, etc.

The end result is not a pretty picture. The more moral codes our cultures are convinced are not useful on a major scale, the closer we move towards self-inflicted annihilation as a species.

I agree these things are rampant, however, as stated here before, the majority of the world has a 'religion'.. so this rampancy is also caused by those that profess to follow God, or a caring god.. I don't see any super religious morals taking hold that can only be attributed to God.

In other words, for the profession that religion makes people more moral, or that they are moral because they follow God's code(s), seems to be very misleading.. especially when used against atheists. As also discussed here elsewhere, Hitler thought he was following Gods code.. thought he was doing the larger 'moral' good for the human race as a whole, and was able to maintain religious support..

I'm not saying I disagree that there are a lot of things that are going on that show we are not a very moral society in many instances, I'm just sating that morality isn't a gift of God.. it is a natural growth of 'laws' that go towards species survival..

Don't kill me, I won't kill you.. we both live to enlarge our race.. it's a little bit of common sense too.. Good job God gave us some of that too!

:teeth:

In Love and Peace

JCA

[Undomiel]

We, as people of faith, accept the watering down of the nation's moral codes because the society as a whole insists on it - they insist because they don't subscribe to the same moral codes and as a result we have lower moral standards across the board. The christians stand up and start action against the lowering of moral codes. They do this by via the enactment of laws that support moral behavior. Then others start complaining, "Hey, these pesky conservative christians have got to stop involving themselves in political issues." But the pesky conservative christians are interested in the moral fiber of the country for the same reasons any moral atheist would be - because moral standards are what hold the nation together and perpetuate the continuation of the species.

[Passant]

"Because having wanton sex is dangerous and considered a sin by God."

Alls an atheist has to do is remove "and considered a sin by God" And they still have a solid basis for morality.

[JCA]

Yesterday @ 09:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115552#post115552)
Undomiel:

We, as people of faith, accept the watering down of the nation's moral codes because the society as a whole insists on it - they insist because they don't subscribe to the same moral codes and as a result we have lower moral standards across the board. The christians stand up and start action against the lowering of moral codes. They do this by via the enactment of laws that support moral behavior. Then others start complaining, "Hey, these pesky conservative christians have got to stop involving themselves in political issues." But the pesky conservative christians are interested in the moral fiber of the country for the same reasons any moral atheist would be - because moral standards are what hold the nation together and perpetuate the continuation of the species.

I find this interesting.. are you saying that the people in our government, and the lawmakers etc. are all Un-Christian? Or not Christians? Or do not apprently believe in (a) God?

I find this as remarkable as people who believe that Scientists can't be Christians. :hrm:

What I am saying is that there is nothing stopping the religious people who are already in office from adding their theist thoughts to their opinions, and although they can't outright add religion to the state, they can certainly act upon those morals supposedly given to them by their 'religion'. SO how did these restrictions, or lack thereof that you mention, come about?

I find your thoughts on this to lack follow through to their natural conclusion. Do you know how much of the population of this country is actually "atheist"? Are you telling me that ALL these people are in Government, or that the Government and ruling bodies are made up ONLY of such people?

I guess I'm not making it clear.. ALL people can come to a sense of morality, and all people can exercise that morality as they choose to.. those who made the laws that restrict or add to morality are NOT just atheists.. but us Theists too! I would expect more from Theists, as most religions call for it, but strangely, in a religion heavy world, we have as has been suggested.

Now, I'm not blaming religion per se.. but I think you will find that a good morality is a couple of the fruits of the spirit combined, and those that have it are worth watching. It's just a shame that not enough people live up to their own moral standards.

Still, my main point is that one can claim a moral high ground.. and those who recognise one who shares Gods morality, will know them.. claiming that only those of a certain religion can have morality though, goes against my God given common sense :wink:

IMHO.

Love and Peace

JCA

[Undomiel]

Today @ 06:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115768#post115768)
JCA:



I find this interesting.. are you saying that the people in our government, and the lawmakers etc. are all Un-Christian? Or not Christians? Or do not apprently believe in (a) God?

I find this as remarkable as people who believe that Scientists can't be Christians. :hrm:

Nopers, that's not what I meant. I think the people put politicians in office that reflect their own views on life, the universe and everything. An example might be when the issue of abortion legalization was so red hot, that a politician could make or break his career at the state and local level depending on how he stood on that one issue alone.

[wwatts]

Too often I see Christians make the claim that without God or religion, there can be no morality.. but I find this to be an un-truth.


I would say that without a personal unchanging person/mind(God), that there can be no objective moral values. That is to say that torturing an innocent child would be not be wrong whether anyone thought it was wrong or not. If there are no objective moral values, torturing an innocent child is only as wrong as driving on the right side of the street(a preference).

Or to put it in other words, if the Germans had won WW2 and killed everyone else that disagreed with them on the planet, and then held a vote that proved 100% of the planet agreed with Hitler, Hitler would be right if the only moral values are subjective moral values.

[JCA]

Today @ 03:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116328#post116328)
wwatts:



I would say that without a personal unchanging person/mind(God), that there can be no objective moral values. That is to say that torturing an innocent child would be not be wrong whether anyone thought it was wrong or not. If there are no objective moral values, torturing an innocent child is only as wrong as driving on the right side of the street(a preference).

Or to put it in other words, if the Germans had won WW2 and killed everyone else that disagreed with them on the planet, and then held a vote that proved 100% of the planet agreed with Hitler, Hitler would be right if the only moral values are subjective moral values.


I disagree :teeth:

As I said in my prior posts, killing babies will never be an acceptable moral behavior (by the large majority of people).. and for at least two reasons.. 1) It doesn't further the race, and so would eventually lead to extinction, and 2) as stated, most moral actions are based upon things we would not like done to ourselves.. we instinctively know that if we are going to kill babies, then one of ours may be killed.. and we ourselves are lucky to be alive and escaped that fate..

So your points don't make sense.. you are also putting up a large straw man when you try and get 100% of the people to agree to everything.. following your thoughts to the end, there would only be Hitler left standing.. as I'm sure there where a few things that not everyone could agree on.

Basically, I think you have a point that morals can also be subjectively viewed, but I disagree that there can be no objective morality..

Here's an example.. without God..

A person lies to me, and I find out about it. I can reach two conclusions (maybe more, but that is just splitting hairs).. Lying was useful/good/enjoyable etc., or that lying hurt/defamed/damaged etc. me somehow.. then, going a step further, I can decide whether or not *I* want to lie to someone.. knowing that I am either doing them good, or harm, dependent on my previous conclusion.

If I did not like being lied to, I can just as easily come to the decision that it would be best NOT to lie to others.. and can do so without the need for "Godly" thoughts or inspiration etc. I can do so because of 'experience', and because of what I don't like having done to me.

I say again, EVERYONE can have morals.. subjective, or objective, without the requirement of God.. but not everyone will act accordingly.

IMHO.

:teeth:

IN Love and Peace

JCA

[JardinPrayer]

From mydictionary.com:
mor·al
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
n.
The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

I don't see "God" mentioned anywhere there. I do see the word "standards." While there do seem to be some universal standards for morality (like torturing innocent children), there are cultures that have practices we might consider immoral but they don't. Their "standards" for moral behavior differ from ours.

What Christians do is give God by his Word the total authority for judging what is moral. That is our "standard." It happens to agree with many of the universal standards I mentioned above. With or without God.

In my personal experience, I was raised by a lapsed Roman Catholic father and a totally non-religious mother. They decided not to raise their children in the church, but to teach us right from wrong and allow us to grow up and make our own spiritual choices. I thank them to this day for that. Today, I am their spiritual counsellor! That said, as a child, I recall being extremely conscientious about hurting the feelings of others. In support of the definition of "moral" above which said it is determined by considering whether or not you would want that behavior aimed at you, I was a little sulky as a kid whenever anyone offended my delicate sensibilities. So, I was really nice to people in return. If I saw I had offended someone by mistake, I would feel guilty for weeks over that. God was nowhere in the picture. If I lied as a kid, it haunted me day and night until I fessed up. If I witnessed an act of violence toward another person or critter, I objected LOUDLY. God didn't teach me that...my mother did.

From another angle, we have a number of actual laws in effect that govern moral behavior. It's illegal to expose yourself in public or peek in someone's windows or sexually abuse a child. It's illegal to murder, rape, kidnap. In our society, we don't adhere to Mosaic law, rather our judicial system. Those of us who live by the 10 commandments will find they are right in line with many of our laws on the books. Did God write those laws? Well, he sure may have had a big influence on how we got to this universal agreement on so many things (he did create us all, after all), but he isn't necessarily the one who sat at those tables and deliberated those laws and signed those papers. Non-Christians do not commit crimes because they don't want to get arrested and because they have a strong sense that those things are wrong. Otherwise, we'd be shooting every neighbor whose dog pooped on our lawn without a second thought!

I am devoutly Christian, but have only been so for 5 years. What I find has changed in me is that I've grown a little more prudish and a little more conservative in my behavior as a result of what I have learned from God, but my basic moral fiber and sense of right and wrong was never challenged by salvation's demands on my life. My skirt lenghts got a little lower, my necklines got a little higher, but I didn't have to change the way I regard my fellow human being or other life form.

Just how it looks from where I sit.

Blessings and peace,

JardinPrayer

[greyphilosophy]

We have pleanty of historical examples of cultures which dehumanized other cultures and committed what we would now consider attrocities against them. Were these actions wrong? Not in the minds of the societies as they committed them. The vikings saw no problem with conducting raids against other people if their survival depended on it. Most of the western world saw no problem with slavery. Many people were killed in the name of Islam. Many people were killed in the name of Christianity.

It seems like many people here are trying to claim that the "Golden Rule" is somehow universal. It is not. You treat your family, friends, and neighbors how you would like to be treated, sure, but you either like these people, or have to deal with them so much that the consequences of doing otherwise stop you. What about Osama Bin Laden? Do you consider America's decision to kill him moral? What about Saddam Hussein? As great an ideal treating other people how you would like to be treated is, I see no reason to believe this ideal is in great practice today. What I see is an eye for a eye, where treating other people how they treat you is the more popular practice.


As I said in my prior posts, killing babies will never be an acceptable moral behavior (by the large majority of people).. and for at least two reasons.. 1) It doesn't further the race, and so would eventually lead to extinction, and 2) as stated, most moral actions are based upon things we would not like done to ourselves.. we instinctively know that if we are going to kill babies, then one of ours may be killed.. and we ourselves are lucky to be alive and escaped that fate..


When you make your note "by the large majority of people" you imply that morality is set by the masses. The masses might change their opinion of what is moral tomorrow. If morality is universal then it should also be constant. An appeal to the people for morality isn't a good standard.

Also I think abortion is a counter example to your argument.

~Grey

[wwatts]

As I said in my prior posts, killing babies will never be an acceptable moral behavior (by the large majority of people).. and for at least two reasons.. 1) It doesn't further the race, and so would eventually lead to extinction, and 2) as stated, most moral actions are based upon things we would not like done to ourselves.. we instinctively know that if we are going to kill babies, then one of ours may be killed.. and we ourselves are lucky to be alive and escaped that fate..

It seems that you are arguing against this premise

P1) Objective moral values cannot exist without an unchanging person.


Tell me which of these premises you deny:

1) If torturing an innocent baby is wrong whether anyone believes it or not it is objective
2) torturing an innocent baby is wrong whether anyone believes it or not
3) Therefore (2) is objective

You seem to be denying (1) althought you may be denying (2) as well. I would ask you to define objective. I will define it as something that exists outside of the observer's perceptions. Or in other words, the thing that the perceptions are based on

www.dictionary.com

objective

\Ob*jec"tive\, a. [Cf.F. objectif.] 1. Of or pertaining to an object.

2. (Metaph.) Of or pertaining to an object; contained in, or having the nature or position of, an object; outward; external; extrinsic; -- an epithet applied to whatever ir exterior to the mind, or which is simply an object of thought or feeling, and opposed to subjective.


Also, consider this counter-example to your idea of objective morality. If an alien race came and used the human race as livestock how could that be objectively wrong, given your idea of objective morals?

[JardinPrayer]

Today @ 01:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116894#post116894)
greyphilosophy:

We have pleanty of historical examples of cultures which dehumanized other cultures and committed what we would now consider attrocities against them. Were these actions wrong? Not in the minds of the societies as they committed them. The vikings saw no problem with conducting raids against other people if their survival depended on it. Most of the western world saw no problem with slavery. Many people were killed in the name of Islam. Many people were killed in the name of Christianity.

Firstly, examples of cultures that committed attrocious acts does not mean they considered them moral...evil begets evil. They considered themselves right to do these things because their hearts were black.

Secondly, God Himself provides for fighting for survival and even slavery in the old testament. Again, that is not about morailty. Having a slave or servant of any kind is not immoral...treating them inhumanely is. We don't practice slavery in this country any more, but it was a standard practice in biblical times. Some of us are lucky enough to have housekeepers or nannys...these are paid servants, as biblical slaves were to be paid, says God.

And, I don't think anyone feels it is moral to kill in the name of your religion. It's done, but those who do it are generally regarded as wrong by the vast majority of the rest of the world.

What about Osama Bin Laden? Do you consider America's decision to kill him moral? What about Saddam Hussein? As great an ideal treating other people how you would like to be treated is, I see no reason to believe this ideal is in great practice today. What I see is an eye for a eye, where treating other people how they treat you is the more popular practice.

Wrong, in my opinion. The men you mention have committed attrocities in the eyes of the rest of the world, refuse to participate in the United Nations' efforts to keep world peace and respect for other cultures, massacre their own people, and pose a direct threat to the safety and security of the rest of the world, most especially Americans. That certainly qualifies for fighting for survival in my opinion. God has armies rise up and fight others for their wrongdoing over and over again. Had Osama and Saddam behaved morally, no one would be out to get them. That's not an eye for an eye at all...that is self defence and compassion for our fellow human beings who are being oppressed.

I for one, do not restrict my "Golden Rule" behavior to people I like and people I have to spend a lot of time with. I am courteous and respectful to store clerks, people I bump into in department stores, people who cut me off on the road, even people who are rude to me when I make customer service calls. I am being courteous and respectful to you, whom I don't know at all and don't have to spend any time at all with. I'm disagreeing with you, but I respect your right to your opinion and am careful to use the term, "In my opinion," where appropriate.

If you're having the "eye for an eye" experience frequently enough that you perceive it as more "universal" that simple courtesy and human decency, I pray you find a way out of it. People are essentially good...unless something is wrong.

JardinPrayer

[JCA]

Today @ 01:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116894#post116894)
greyphilosophy:

When you make your note "by the large majority of people" you imply that morality is set by the masses. The masses might change their opinion of what is moral tomorrow. If morality is universal then it should also be constant. An appeal to the people for morality isn't a good standard.

Also I think abortion is a counter example to your argument.

~Grey


Actually, that wasn't my implication at all.. my implication was that the majority of people will arrive at this conclusion all by themselves, without God, or other peoples input.. That is what makes some of these 'morals' universal.. the fact that so many poeple arrive at them all by themselves, and are not 'imposed' upon them by others.

Also, abortion ISN'T a counter to my proposition.. this is a debate that has gone on here, and in the courts, and all across the civilised world. In fact, if anything, what you state above is an example of others projecting moral issues upon others.. not the other way around.. but, as I say, that one is still being argued.. and to be honest, I don't want to get into an abortion debate in this thread.. start your own one on it, and I'll come on in :teeth: , but I see quite a few differences between what we are speaking about here..

Thank you for the reply though..and I agree that there will be some grey area's.. even as a Christian, I am forced to admit that sometimes I do not understand why certain things happen on a 'moral' level.. why God lets them happen.. the end result is, that *I* don't have ALL the moral answers, and wasn't trying to..

Once again, I was just addressing the fact that morality isn't a Gift of God (other than the fact we can think, and assess etc.), living to a good moral standard IS though for a Christian, and as I said, those who follow Christ will recognise those that have such a standard.

:thumb:

IN Love and Peace

JCA

[JCA]

Today @ 10:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117204#post117204)
wwatts:

It seems that you are arguing against this premise

P1) Objective moral values cannot exist without an unchanging person.

Tell me which of these premises you deny:

1) If torturing an innocent baby is wrong whether anyone believes it or not it is objective
2) torturing an innocent baby is wrong whether anyone believes it or not
3) Therefore (2) is objective

You seem to be denying (1) althought you may be denying (2) as well. I would ask you to define objective. I will define it as something that exists outside of the observer's perceptions. Or in other words, the thing that the perceptions are based on

www.dictionary.com

objective

\Ob*jec"tive\, a. [Cf.F. objectif.] 1. Of or pertaining to an object.

2. (Metaph.) Of or pertaining to an object; contained in, or having the nature or position of, an object; outward; external; extrinsic; -- an epithet applied to whatever ir exterior to the mind, or which is simply an object of thought or feeling, and opposed to subjective.


Also, consider this counter-example to your idea of objective morality. If an alien race came and used the human race as livestock how could that be objectively wrong, given your idea of objective morals?


First, I have to say that no one here knows the mind of God. You do not know any more than I do whether or not killing infants is an "Objective" morality for all.. there are many examples where God himself has ordered such things.. we can only assume it is for a higher moral reason than we can fathom.. so by that definition I guess I would say there is no REAL objective morality UNTIL we get to be one with God.. and know the 'truth'..

Basically, I'm saying that your point 1) above (although I believe it to be true), is 'subjective' in it's entirety.

Here's also OBJECTIVE from http://www.dictionary.com

ob·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.
A) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1. and B) Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
It seems to me that any moral attribute we assign as coming from God, are actually "influenced by emotions or personal prejudices". I cannot say that they would be objective, as you can't seemt o get every Christian to agree on ALL the basics as it is.. yes, we all agree that murdering is morally unsound, and yet, would quite happily see some who commits such an act, put to death (murdered). Seems pretty subjective to me..

Part of the problem arises when you DO get an Objective Critic, one who isn't influenced by Religion or Science etc.. then few people want to follow them.. as they subjectively don't like the objectivity the person may be showing!

Here's an example of something we all feel is an "objective" moral law, and how we have made it "subjective":

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.


So the Objective not murdering, becomes the Subjective not murdering unlawfully.. In other words, even Objective moral standards are taken and made subjective, as none of us is without emotion or personal prejudice.. especially when it comes to God etc.. I know several good Christians here who have no problem with seeing an (and I know I didn't want to bring it up here, but it DOES make my murder point) abortionist receive capital punishment for their crime.. is that a double standard? Is that someone subjectively manipulating Gods Objective moral command not to murder? In actual fact, I don't even see where it limits murdering to only humans in the Bible; directly.. That has all come from subjective thoughts by man.

IMHO..

Once again, I will state, my purpose here isn't to come up with all the moral answers to some of the questions that have bothered mankind for centuries.. my purpose was and is to point out that morality is obtainable by all, and not just 'religious' people.. how it is acted upon makes a big difference...

I thought this piece right here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm, which discusses Thou Shalt Not Kill, to give a lot of insight to what I mean about objective/subjective understandings, and how even those that have studied God and the Bible cannot agree upon 100%..

As I say.. no one has the full goods on the Truth of Morality, and what is Universally Moral and what isn't.. we believe we do, but that's just a subjective thought :teeth:

Do you see what I mean? You can pick apart my points if you will, but it won't change the premise.. I'm pretty sure that man has been struggling with "objective morality" for ages.. doesn't change the fact that we can ALL produce 'morality' - theist and Atheist alike.

IN Love and Peace

JCA

[greyphilosophy]

Jardinprayer writes:

Firstly, examples of cultures that committed attrocious acts does not mean they considered them moral...evil begets evil. They considered themselves right to do these things because their hearts were black.


The underlying question is, "Where does morality come from?"

How do you know their hearts were black? Can something be right without being moral?


Secondly, God Himself provides for fighting for survival and even slavery in the old testament. Again, that is not about morailty. Having a slave or servant of any kind is not immoral...treating them inhumanely is. We don't practice slavery in this country any more, but it was a standard practice in biblical times. Some of us are lucky enough to have housekeepers or nannys...these are paid servants, as biblical slaves were to be paid, says God.


My post specifially talked about slavery in the western world, which was not in conjunction with the practice as outlined in the bible. The majority believed that it was right. My point was that morality cannot be defined by the masses because what is considered moral at one time is considered to be immoral today.


And, I don't think anyone feels it is moral to kill in the name of your religion. It's done, but those who do it are generally regarded as wrong by the vast majority of the rest of the world.


Okay, you confuse me here because you write in the next paragraph:


God has armies rise up and fight others for their wrongdoing over and over again


So either it must be right to kill in the name of religion, even though it is considered wrong by the majority of the world, or it is wrong and God has commanded people to do immoral actions. Please resolve the dissonance.


That's not an eye for an eye at all...that is self defence and compassion for our fellow human beings who are being oppressed.


Please explain to me the difference. If someone hits me, and I hit them back, isn't that eye for an eye. Isn't that also self defence? If someone hits my girlfriend and I hit them back, isn't that eye for an eye? Isn't that also compassion for a fellow human being who is being oppressed?


I for one, do not restrict my "Golden Rule" behavior to people I like and people I have to spend a lot of time with.


Good for you. Would you have extended it to Adolf Hitler? My feeling is that most people would not. Instead of treating people we dislike how we would like to be treated, I see people have a greater desire to treat those people how they have treated us, or our fellow man. You yourself have tried to justify the killing of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as a moral action. If it is moral, it isn't comming from the golden rule.

~Grey

[greyphilosophy]

JCA writes:

Actually, that wasn't my implication at all.. my implication was that the majority of people will arrive at this conclusion all by themselves, without God, or other peoples input.. That is what makes some of these 'morals' universal.. the fact that so many poeple arrive at them all by themselves, and are not 'imposed' upon them by others.


I would need an example before I would believe it. Everyone who is born into a culture has those cultural views imposed upon them. Sometimes they rebel, sometimes they choose to accept those views. In rome it was fairly common practice in times of famine to leave babies in baskets on cliffs, where if another family wanted to take care of the baby they could adopt it, but otherwise the child would die. In the bible we see the killing of children because they made fun of Elisha's baldness.

Many people do act in accordance with God's standard for morality without knowledge of God, however it's not the specific coincidences which will convince me. It will be when I can see a standard for morality which covers everything we consider to be moral. If the golden rule always led to moral decisions, then that would suffice, however if the killing of harsh dictators, imprisonment of criminals, parking tickets, et cetera are moral, then the golden rule is not the standard.


Also, abortion ISN'T a counter to my proposition.. this is a debate that has gone on here, and in the courts, and all across the civilised world. In fact, if anything, what you state above is an example of others projecting moral issues upon others.. not the other way around.. but, as I say, that one is still being argued.. and to be honest, I don't want to get into an abortion debate in this thread.. start your own one on it, and I'll come on in , but I see quite a few differences between what we are speaking about here..


I do not want to get into an abortion debate either. I brought up the issue to show the lack of universal morality when it comes to killing babies.


Thank you for the reply though..and I agree that there will be some grey area's.. even as a Christian, I am forced to admit that sometimes I do not understand why certain things happen on a 'moral' level.. why God lets them happen.. the end result is, that *I* don't have ALL the moral answers, and wasn't trying to..

Once again, I was just addressing the fact that morality isn't a Gift of God (other than the fact we can think, and assess etc.), living to a good moral standard IS though for a Christian, and as I said, those who follow Christ will recognise those that have such a standard.


What is morality? If we judge something as moral, we do so against a standard. The accepted standard is what God has revealed. If we judge every moral action, and say, "Oh look, that atheist did something moral according to God," we are saying that morality comes from God. Unless there is another standard, morality requires God.

When you started this thread you said:


A basic moral thought is "thou shalt not kill/murder". This does NOT need God to make good moral sense..


How do you know? What is your standard?

[JCA]

Yesterday @ 11:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118026#post118026)
greyphilosophy:

How do you know? What is your standard?

I have laid out how the 'standard' comes about.. very simply from the fact that I wouldn't want that done to me..

Your example is killing/hurting someone..

If *I* get physically hurt from someone.. I feel pain.. do I like pain? No.. do I like people inflicting it upon me? No.. if I don't like it, will someone else? Probably not - and experience will show that.. So, if I don't want it done to me, then it would make sense not to do it to others.. If I witness murder, you can bloody well guarentee that I don't want that done to me either.. :teeth:

So, from the very conclusion that I don't like something (that in general we all know the majority of people don't like - pain), I also came to the conclusion that it probably isn't good for other people too, and probably wouldn't like it either.

This simple thought translates to a "Moral".

I have now discovered the morality of not murdering or causing pain to others.. I didn't arrive at it through any other method that not wanting something done to me..

Also, this morality was not 'imposed' upon me.. my subjective thoughts about being hurt, after examination of other people etc., turns out to be an objective morality.. not by the fact of anyone forcing it on anyone, bt by the fact that practically everyone agrees with the 'moral'. How it gets handled from there, is also then subjective.. as you see by OUR laws etc..

Also, the part I didn't want to get into about abortion and babies is that once again, you cannot state that as an 'objective' moral rule.. other than the main "Thou SHalt Not kill/Murder", there is no mention in Gods word about the right and wrong of abortion. Just as we have subjectively changed it so that we can kill lawfully, so is there much subjective conjecture as to what defines "life" in the womb.. etc.. once again, these are not my arguments.. just examples of how there is a difference of opinion, even amoungst Christians, as to how Abortion should be handled.. unlike murdering, for some reason people view it morally different.. anyone who tells another that it is morally wrong to do such a thing is being subjective, because as you say, if it was 'objective' truth - totally provable - then maybe more would agree.

Once again, I want to say that I do not condone abortion.. but I do not beleive that I, or anyone yet, knows the objective morality of such an act.. only our subjective thoughts and beliefs on the matter, which are often modified from internal and external forces. It is one of those things that I feel many people will have to answer for..

Anyway, I think my example holds water.. IMHO.

IN Love and Peace


JCA

[wwatts]

First, I have to say that no one here knows the mind of God. You do not know any more than I do whether or not killing infants is an "Objective" morality for all..


Romans 2
14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them

Christians should know that God created man to basically know good and evil. I think your problem is that you think in order to have knowledge you must have exhaustive knowledge. That is to say, a person that doesn't know all the attributes of a object, doesn't know anything about that object. But how does that follow? I don't think it does.





there are many examples where God himself has ordered such things.. we can only assume it is for a higher moral reason than we can fathom.. so by that definition I guess I would say there is no REAL objective morality UNTIL we get to be one with God.. and know the 'truth'..


I think you are committing a fallacy here.

If I understand what you are saying it is something like this:

1) There are some moral values are definitely not objective
2) ...
3) Therefore there are no objective moral values

You need to fill in (2) in order to get to your conclusion (3) otherwise you are committing a fallacy of division

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/division.html

Or maybe your are saying this:

1) Human beings have senses
2) A human being's senses are not capable of determining any objective truths
3) An objective moral value is an objective truth
4) Therefore a human being cannot determine an objective moral value

I deny (2) , but really even if you accept (4) that has nothing to do with whether objective moral values exist or not.


Basically, I'm saying that your point 1) above (although I believe it to be true), is 'subjective' in it's entirety.


Let's see if I understand. You are saying that you hold as true

1) If torturing an innocent baby is wrong whether anyone believes it or not it is objective

but that (1) is subjective? So you are saying that torturing an innocent baby is wrong whether you believe it or not but that it is subjective? But in order for something to be subjective that something needs a mind to hold it! You may have to rephrase this.


Here's also OBJECTIVE from http://www.dictionary.com

ob·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.
A) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1. and B) Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.


Maybe this is where the misunderstanding lies. You are using a different meaning for objective. We are in the philosophy forum so I think we should use the metaphysical meaning for objective for clarity's sake. If you scroll down in www.dictionary.com you will see the metaphysical meaning noted by (Metaph.) .


It seems to me that any moral attribute we assign as coming from God, are actually "influenced by emotions or personal prejudices". I cannot say that they would be objective, as you can't seemt o get every Christian to agree on ALL the basics as it is..


See the division arguement



Once again, I will state, my purpose here isn't to come up with all the moral answers to some of the questions that have bothered mankind for centuries.. my purpose was and is to point out that morality is obtainable by all, and not just 'religious' people.. how it is acted upon makes a big difference...


This is 100% correct. The question is whether the moral values that are built into your senses (whether by God a la romans or by evolution) is just an illusion (purely subjective) or does it exist in the real world whether you believe it or not.


As I say.. no one has the full goods on the Truth of Morality, and what is Universally Moral and what isn't.. we believe we do, but that's just a subjective thought :teeth:


Let me ask you this, is this statement objectively true? If not, then why should I listen to it? If I neither should nor shouldn't listen to it, why are you communicating it to me? Why communicate at all?

It seems to me that you have no basis for communication at all if you don't believe in objective truth a-priori.

[greyphilosophy]

06-05-2003 @ 06:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118273#post118273)
JCA:


I have laid out how the 'standard' comes about.. very simply from the fact that I wouldn't want that done to me..

Your example is killing/hurting someone..

If *I* get physically hurt from someone.. I feel pain.. do I like pain? No.. do I like people inflicting it upon me? No.. if I don't like it, will someone else? Probably not - and experience will show that.. So, if I don't want it done to me, then it would make sense not to do it to others.. If I witness murder, you can bloody well guarentee that I don't want that done to me either.. :teeth:

So, from the very conclusion that I don't like something (that in general we all know the majority of people don't like - pain), I also came to the conclusion that it probably isn't good for other people too, and probably wouldn't like it either.

This simple thought translates to a "Moral".

I have now discovered the morality of not murdering or causing pain to others.. I didn't arrive at it through any other method that not wanting something done to me..

Also, this morality was not 'imposed' upon me.. my subjective thoughts about being hurt, after examination of other people etc., turns out to be an objective morality.. not by the fact of anyone forcing it on anyone, bt by the fact that practically everyone agrees with the 'moral'. How it gets handled from there, is also then subjective.. as you see by OUR laws etc..

[JCA]

Is Justice immoral? The whole idea of punishing someone for doing something immoral, is that you do something to them they don't like to encourage them to be more moral from that point forward. Unless you do believe that justice is immoral, I would recommend you modify your standard.

Euthanasia - The people who debate about Euthanasia for either side, both care about the patient. What is the objective moral standard to adhere to in this case? Here is another place where your standard seems to be lacking.

I'm not outright opposed to the idea that objective morality could exist without God, however I have not been provided with enough reason to believe it. Nietzsche has stated that morality is false if it supposes that there are moral truths or values which are universal. I agree with Nietzsche so far as to say that without God there cannot be universal morality.

~Grey

[JCA]

Yesterday @ 06:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118794#post118794)
greyphilosophy:

Is Justice immoral? The whole idea of punishing someone for doing something immoral, is that you do something to them they don't like to encourage them to be more moral from that point forward. Unless you do believe that justice is immoral, I would recommend you modify your standard.

The first question is who's Justice are you talking about? Yours, mine, the Bibles, Gods, Christs? You can have a subjective view morally.. but you cannot tell me that there is an objective morality written in the Bible that goes into the depths of things as Man does.. and in doing so, makes what we believe to be Objective morality, into subjective morality. I use killing as an example.

To address directly what you said, is Justice Moral? I take it you mean "Objectively Moral"? To be honest, I would have to say not. So I don't need to modify my standard, according to the commandments of God, as brought through Christ, I would say any justice system that requires the taking of a life, is actually 'immoral' according to what would be considered the objectivity of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" - and deviation from that is subjective.. IMHO :teeth:


Euthanasia - The people who debate about Euthanasia for either side, both care about the patient. What is the objective moral standard to adhere to in this case? Here is another place where your standard seems to be lacking.
Not at all.. what standard have I set? I have said that in the case of killing, Gods/Christs commands are not to kill.. period.. Man has made subjective destinctions upon that command.. Euthanasia is actually as biblically unsound overall as people say abortion is. It is the taking of a life by another..

I see no difference between the thinking of some religious people who say that to kill a child killer is just, and the atheist who says we should kill the child killer to teach others. As you point out, morally, they both have their merits.. but I only questioned what is the actual Objective morality here.. and have said that I doubt that either side is 'morally superior'..

I think there is a big distinction between someone who wants to euthanase themselves, than someone doing it for them.. or deciding to. But that's another topic.


I'm not outright opposed to the idea that objective morality could exist without God, however I have not been provided with enough reason to believe it. Nietzsche has stated that morality is false if it supposes that there are moral truths or values which are universal. I agree with Nietzsche so far as to say that without God there cannot be universal morality.

~Grey

To be honest, I can't see how you can agree with Nietzsche if it is stated "morality is false if it supposes that there are moral truths or values which are universal." You seem to be saying this is correct, except that you believe in God, so there IS/ARE moral values that are Universal.. which disagrees with what you say Nietzsche said!

I have stated in the thread that morality is available to all, and that we have no true reference for what so many of us call "Objective reality", and that in fact, morality itself is subjective based upon the individual.. and so it cannot be said that a Christian has a higher moral value than anyone else.. BUT I have said that it CAN be said that Christians have a reason to act upon their morals more than others, because we believe in an ultimate consequence.

In fact, if anything, I agree with Nietzsche more than you do! :teeth:

Now, I know that many people can argue that God isn't against killing etc.. to be honest, I don't care about history where it says God says it was "okay to do this" to the people who folowed Him or worshipped HIm at the time.. my concern is what Christ said, how that pertains to my life, and how I should live it..

There is a distinct difference between a 'command' and reading history etc. to see how people acted before. If Christs command is Thou SHalt Not Kill.. no matter how many stories or tales I read where people have been given leave to by God to do this before, it doesn't change MY command not to kill.. if anything, that is about as close to an objective morality that you can get.. BUT, a TRULY objective morality would be observed by all who followed the giver of such morality.. such as Christ.. so how do we get these subjective understandings that it is okay to kill in this situation, or that situation?

Sorry if this seems to jump about a little, doing this at work, and have been interrupted a couple of times.. sheesh.. they even make me work at work.. what is the world coming to! :teeth:

Anyway, I'm not sure exactly what it is you are tryig to attribute to what I am saying.. as I don't have all the answers, nor do I claim to always be correct etc.. The only thing I really pose in this thread as being the main point, is that Morality is indeed subjective for all people, and that Theist and Atheist alike can arrive at moral standards both "Godly", or "unGodly".

Here's a for instance.. A man who has never heard the Gospel, lives a sheltered but 'good' life.. (displays all the fruits of the spirit, even without reading the Bible or 'knowing' Christ), compared to a Christian who is having adulterous thoughts, but trying to overcome them.

Is the Christian more moral by default? Does the Christian have a higher morality?

I think people tend to mix morality with the spirit.. and so mistake the two sometimes.. Morality isn't given of God.. the Spirit is.. Our Spirit, especially one of a Christian, can then be expressed through our morality. IF our morality was/is directly intervened upon when we accept the spirit (or the spirit accepts us, depending on youyr view), then I question again whether we have Free Will or not.

For those who say that killing is acceptable in some forms, especially if said killing can be shown to be acceptable in the Bible, then just what is so 'hateful' about some of the White Supremist groups who bomb places etc? Or who pick on other religions? Or who pick on other races, such as the Jewish etc? Isn't ANY drawing of a line subjective if you ignore the base command and say that killing is allowed?

As I said, I don't have all the answers.. but in a similar vein as yourself when you say you can't see objective morality without God, I'm saying I don't see Theist or Atheists as having the moral edge when it comes to WHAT is or isn't moral.. I just see Christains as having the advantage of knowing that good morality is rewarded, and bad morality isn't.. and not that any one of us, or group, has it ALL down pat.. :thumb:

I'm gonna stop here.. probably repeated myself about 3 times.. sorry if I did..

IN Love and Peace

JCA

[greyphilosophy]

JCA:

I would take specific quotes from your previous posts, but I'm not sure exactly where to take them from :teeth:

Your references to God I think are misplaced in this discussion. Again I go back to the standard, and if you still believe that the standard of morality comes from "do unto others and you would have them do unto you" then all your points should be taken from that context... unless you intend to argue against the position of God being a source of objective morality.

I wasn't exactly talking about the kind of justice which requires killing in my previous post. Maybe the kind of justice where you cut off the hand of a thief might suffice. I think a determining question is do you think people who park in fire lanes should get ticketed or towed?

Now your position that morality is subjective is interesting. Do you think you have any right to impose your morality on anyone else? And if not what good is morality? If someone steals your lunch, would you be morally right to confront them to get your lunch back, confiscate something of theirs which is of equal value, call the police, or do anything at all?

I believe that everyone has an idea of what is moral and what is not. We appeal to it whenever way say, "That's not fair!" When someone takes the seat you were sitting in, you can say, "I was there first," as if somehow there was a rule that this other person is breaking. We also recongize it when we make excuses, that somehow we have done something or not done something, and we are trying to escape the blame. The very fact that these rules are so universally accepted leads me to believe they did not originate within specific cultures.

If there is such a thing as a universal moral truth, then we all have a duty to impose it upon as many people who are not already under it as possible. However in order for a moral truth to be universal it must be objective. Objective moral truths are not determined by their popularity however, they are determined by God.

Now I think I've repeated myself... Anyway, read C.S. Lewis's book "Mere Christianity". The first section talks about universal morality.

~Grey

[JCA]

Thanks for the advice on the reading.. have already done so, a while ago actually, so may re-read it just to refresh.. :smile:

Actually, I didn't use the "do unto others" as the standard for morality, I used it as an example of how we come about 'morality'. It is one of the basic tools that we use, and in fact can be seen in all the commands/morals given by God.. not saying that it created them specifically, but can be seen in all of them.

Also, I don't want to beat about the head the kind of thing that was discussed here: The "moral absolutes.." Thread (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&forumid=11&threadid=5173)

I think that thread says an awful lot, and was interesting to read..

NOW, my biggest point about all this, other than the fact I believe that morality is come about in a totally subjective fashion, and that it is indeed the majority that set what is "objective morality", no matter how you try and put it, and we all have this 'ability' - is that one thing everyone keeps harping about on this subject..

Context :teeth:

YOu see, I've read these threads, and I've read JP Holdings page about "Thou SHalt Not what?" and various other places that talk about the context of this, and the context of that, and what this meant back then, and how that relates to now etc.. and you know what? I find most of that to be out of context! :teeth:

Shocked? Nahh.. don't be.. I have a tendency to put my foot in my mouth.. that's if I can get it there before it get's blown off :teeth:

Here's why.. It makes no difference if the commandment said "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder".. both of these instances of what it may mean where changed and summerized into a new commandment.. given by Christ.

That which was waxing old, was not understood properly.. that is why Christ came in the first place (IMHO), to give us the NT.. to correct what was not only not followed correctly, but no longer fit (Was waxing old) and needed 'revamping'..

And so we get to the true context that ALL Commandments should be taken in:

Romans 13:9
For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

THAT is the context that all commandments are to be looked through.. it is timeless, and encompasses all nations races etc.. This is Christs Second Commandment.. it is what we are told to do.

In that context, I don't really care what anyone says about the supposed right and wrong of killing OR murdering.. according to the commands of my Christ, I am to look at all things through the thought of "loving thy neighbor as yourself (myself)".. well, to be honest, I wouldn't like/love to be killed for ANY reason.. and I certainly don't find the prospect of killing anyone appealing or particularly lovable.. even in self defense..

Now, Im' not saying that I can hold to such high a moral standard.. when it comes to defense of my family/children etc.. nor can I say what I would do in any particular situation where I would be faced with such a choice.. but it doesn't change the premise that the context of Christs second command is not in dispute anywhere.. it is plain, requires no special apologetics, and stands quite well the test of time - just as the first one does..

And so, if you are looking for where I base MY morals etc. upon.. it is upon that, as much as possible... If that helps any :teeth:

And it may also help people understand my position when it comes to how I treat Theist and Atheist alike..

IN Love and Peace

:smile:

JCA

[greyphilosophy]

I think my misunderstanding comes from a variety of different ideas, some of which have been clarified and some of which have yet to be, but likely will be.

The first one was the idea that the atheist and theist alike both have morality. This led to dispute over subjective and objective morality. You've in a way resolved this by saying that we have no true reference for objective morality. And you've also stated that this isn't really the topic you want to discuss in this thread. In that case I see no reason to discuss it further.

The second was the idea that the golden rule is a... universal tool for discovering subjective morality? I would like clarification that this is your point before I consider addressing it.

And lastly the idea that the Christian has more reason to be moral than the atheist. Up until now I don't think I've mentioned it, though I believe you've mentioned it a couple times. If the Christian and the atheist both have the same ability to be moral, why would the Christian have more reason to be moral?

~Grey

[JCA]

Yesterday @ 01:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119975#post119975)
greyphilosophy:

I think my misunderstanding comes from a variety of different ideas, some of which have been clarified and some of which have yet to be, but likely will be.

The first one was the idea that the atheist and theist alike both have morality. This led to dispute over subjective and objective morality. You've in a way resolved this by saying that we have no true reference for objective morality. And you've also stated that this isn't really the topic you want to discuss in this thread. In that case I see no reason to discuss it further.

The second was the idea that the golden rule is a... universal tool for discovering subjective morality? I would like clarification that this is your point before I consider addressing it.

And lastly the idea that the Christian has more reason to be moral than the atheist. Up until now I don't think I've mentioned it, though I believe you've mentioned it a couple times. If the Christian and the atheist both have the same ability to be moral, why would the Christian have more reason to be moral?

~Grey

HI Grey, thanks for the reply..

Aye.. originally my point was to address the idea that the non-theist cannot have a base for morality. This then got answered with they can have subjective morality, but not objective morality, as objective morality is decided by God..

I also disagreed with this, not that God can create objective morality, but that we as humans have any real idea of the mind of God, and what would or would not be "Objective" morality.. and this goes for Christian and non-theist alike.. the moment we try and define objective reality, it becomes subjective to us.. if you get my drift.

Threads on what is or what isn't "objective" are all over the place, and so yes, I don't feel we really need to continue another one along those lines.. unless there is a specific point that calls for clarification of one or the other..

On the "golden rule" thing, I'm not quite sure what you mean..

If you mean that my suggesting that Christs second command is actually the tool through which one should try and excersize their morality as a Christian, then probably yes :teeth: But what I was actually saying is that *I* personally have used that as my moral compass since I was 7 years old and first started reading the Bible and discovered it.

Can it be used as a tool for discovering subjective morality? Maybe.. but I didn't mean it that way, I meant more of a way of acting upon any subjective morality we may have. I suppose it can be used to help discover more subjective morality, but probably only with deeper investigation of ones morals to see where they may have fallen short of this moral goal.

Also, the reason the Christian has more reason to act according to their moral standard is because there are consequences that the Christian takes into account.. This doesn't mean to say that there is any forcing of a Christian to be Moral, only that when following Christs commands what we each individually consider to be 'good' morality, is what we should be trying to follow. In other words, because we follow Christ, we should come to the conclusion that what is considered 'bad' or commanded against by God, is not 'good' moralistically speaking.. and if we desire heaven, then need to get our subjective morality as close in line with what we believe Gods to be.

In the end, isn't this why we have faith and hope for salvation? Because we truly do not "know" what is objective morality.. we are forced within ourselves to 'create' moral views.. and isn't this what God looks at when He looks inside us? Not just at overall soul, but also at our intention(s) and 'morality'..

Basically, all these things drive the Christian.. whereas they mean little to the non-theist. So in general, I tend to believe that the theist is driven (by themselves) to act more upon their 'good' morals.. whether that morality they express is then in line with Gods moral measure, is entirely decided by God :)

Does this mean that Christians always act more moral than non-theists? Or that non-theists can't arrive at a same moral level as a Christian? I'm not saying that.. I'm trying to dispel those ideas.

Does that assist any? :dufus:

IN Love and Peace

JCA

Added as an afterthought... just because both Christian and Atheist both have the ability to 'have' morality, the consequences of good or bad morality as each party see's it, is not the same.. not quite sure if I explained that properly...

God Bless!

[greyphilosophy]

... the moment we try and define objective reality, it becomes subjective to us...


This is what I am having trouble understanding. I see subjective reality being able to be identical to objective reality, however not necessarily being identical. Also objective reality would exist for everyone, whether they recognized it or not.

It is incredibly difficult sometimes to nail down what is moral and what is not with generalizations. We can often find exceptions that are agreeable. In spite of this I believe God created man with a notion of what is moral, and what is not, even if we are unable to articulate it. (objectively moral)

What this means is that everyone has a priori knowledge of what is moral and what is not. (I know this differs from what I said earlier, having applied more thought to the topic and taken input from C.S. Lewis, Paul, and others I have changed my position.)

Now the problem is in order for me to hold this belief, I have to believe that there is a God who created us with this knowledge. This worldview cannot be shared with an atheist. Because of that I have trouble grouping theists and atheists together.

Thank you for your patience with me as I have been trying to understand your position better. I know I've made you repeat yourself a few times, but it has been helpful to me.

~Grey

[JCA]

Absolutely no problem at all.. eventually we'll arrive at an understanding, if not agreement :teeth:

Now, I do not disagree that objective morality does indeed exist.. I have just said that I don't think we know what it is.. be we Theist or Atheist.. and that the minute we try and grasp it, it indeed becomes subjective..

Now, whether this subjective morality is close to the objective morality I beleive can only be decided by God/Christ, and not other 'men'.

I also agree that we are given a 'link' to what may be the objective morality when God writes His commands on our Hearts and Minds.. if you will, our conscience.. but I believe God does this for everyone, not JUST the Theist, or Christian.. He gives everyone the measure.. IMHO.

I think if you look at it, everyone was born with a 'conscience'.. and so I think we can indeed share the same roots for morality as Atheists..

For instance.. you say we all have it.. those who follow God/Christ, and we shouldn't be clumped together in that respect when it comes to morality, but let me ask you.. where you a Christian when you where 1 day old? Was SkepticBud an Atheist 15 minutes out of the womb?

I wouldn't think so.. at least, not in my world view.. they still have choices to make.. so I tend to believe we ALL start off with the same tools.. some of us just choose to exercise them more often..

If that makes any sense :teeth:

IN Love and Peace

JCA

[apple]

Some say the restriction on sex is because of disease and the possibility of wiping out mankind. They believe that is the reason it is morally wrong.

Assuming 100 people were tested and found disease-free would sex among that group be morally alright?

Is disease the only reason casual sex is frowned upon? If not, what other reasons may there be?

[greyphilosophy]

Apple:

That is a topic worth a new thread IMHO :smile:

[greyphilosophy]

I think if you look at it, everyone was born with a 'conscience'.. and so I think we can indeed share the same roots for morality as Atheists..


You're also saying


we are given a 'link' to what may be the objective morality when God writes His commands on our Hearts and Minds.. if you will, our conscience.. but I believe God does this for everyone


Even though I agree with what you are saying, no atheist will agree with it. The basis of morality for both the theist and non-theist is from God according to you and I. This claim is fine for a theist, but if you are a non-theist you can neither make this claim, nor support this claim. From within the atheist worldview I have yet to find a basis for morality.

~Grey

[apple]

Hi greyphilosophy,

I thought it went with morality. Anyway, remove it if you wish. I just thought I'd leave my comments.

[JCA]

Today @ 10:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123376#post123376)
apple:

Hi greyphilosophy,

I thought it went with morality. Anyway, remove it if you wish. I just thought I'd leave my comments.

True, it is a morlaistic question, but this thread was more about the Theist and Atheist having the same ability to come to moral understandings. I'd be willing to have a crack at your question though if you care to start a new thread :smile:


Anyway, Grey,

I believe that quite a few Atheists could agree that the conscience could indeed be parallel to the Theist 'morality', if explained as I have.. In fact, I speak to quite a few Atheists myself who won't disagree that they are very similar in end result, if not in how they/it comes about.

But I suppose my last question is, on agreeing (so it seemed) with me that the 'conscience' could indeed be a 'moralistic guide', and saying that you didn't think an Atheist would agree with me.. do you now agree that it is indeed possible that we CAN share a moralistic 'code'.. even if the Theist believes in a larger purpose for it?

Just checking :teeth:

Love and Peace

JCA

[greyphilosophy]

JCA, Let me ask you another question first:

If God did not exist would we have a moral conscious? You originally started this thread stateing


Christians make the claim that without God or religion, there can be no morality.. but I find this to be an un-truth.


Do you still believe this is false?

~Grey

[greyphilosophy]

Apple:

I'm not a moderator, I cannot remove posts. The reason why I suggested a new thread is that I think only JCA and I actively post in this one, and I think your question deserves the coverage it would get from being in a new one. If you are shy about starting threads I would be more than happy to start one asking your question for you.

~Grey

[JCA]

Today @ 03:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123883#post123883)
greyphilosophy:

JCA, Let me ask you another question first:

If God did not exist would we have a moral conscious? You originally started this thread stateing



Do you still believe this is false?

~Grey

Yes, I still believe that even if God didn't exist we would create 'morality'. It may not be as defined, it may not be as well practiced, but I still believe we would have morals.

Aesops fables are good examples of moral issues that don't actually require a God to make sense.. I do still believe that having religion makes one want to BE more moral, and so may indeed quicken the 'discovery' of 'Universal Morality' - as opposed to what Christians call the Objective Morality of God.

Like our capability to think, I see 'morality' as being a tool given to all of us.. be it through just being able to reason, or directly 'imposed' upon us at birth (which God is more thn capable of planning for and placing into our design). We can either use it, not use it, use it for 'good', or use it for 'bad' - it's like a super power :teeth:

I guess it's because I believe that God made us all equal.. and that on this level playing field are all the tools we need for Salvation etc... those that choose to use them learn more and so grow faster.. in which ever direction they choose to go..

What I think the difference is in the end is that we cannot have religion and not believe in an objective morality - one set by God. Without religion, then maybe the objective morality disappears.. but not morality altogether.. it just changes and becomes Universal Morality - which is much more subjective and mutable to generation, society, and a whole host of other outside forces.. But it's not ever NOT available (morality), in my eyes.

Once again, this doesn't make either the Theist or Non-Theist any more moral than the next guy whe it comes to who has it.. only on how they 'use' it.. IMHO. :smile:

IN Love and Peace

JCA

[apple]

Greyphilosophy,

That would be appreciated. Thanks

apple

[greyphilosophy]

JCA

We obviously have different definitions of morality, and have denoted the differences. I think we have reached agreement and the end of our discussion with the following conclusion:

Objective morality requires God

Subjective morality does not

Objective morals and subjective morals are sometimes identical

[JCA]

Thank you Grey.. it has been interesting.

I would modify the first line of your statements though:

Objective morality requires God

For the Theist, yes.. For the Non-theist, no.

Once again, there are things that can be found to be Universally testable as being immoral.. and do not require an order from God for everyone to agree..

A very simple test would be to take a gun and walk up to everyone you meet and point it at them and ask them if you would like you to kill them. I can also guarentee that barring the mentally unstable, or mentally brainwashed, practically everyone will tell you NO! If you ask them if they think it is 'wrong', they will tell you yes. Now you have outside verification of a moral judgment, one that seems to be pretty universal.. and could be called, for all intents and purposes, objective morality. Not because it's based upon how many people agree with it, but because ALL normal people agree with it.

Just as we have problems figuring out the Objective morality of God on some issues, so do non-theists have with their "Universal Morality". Discovering what is and is not moral is part of what life IS.. surely even God wants all to be able to understand and be able to make moral decisions.. so He can tell whos being naughty and nice :teeth:

Anyway, I appreciate your input on the subject.

No matter what, in the end, His will be done.

IN Love and Peace

JCA

[greyphilosophy]

Once again, there are things that can be found to be Universally testable as being immoral.. and do not require an order from God for everyone to agree..


The popularity of subjective opinion, regardless upon how universal or unanimous it may be, does not make it objective.

[wwatts]

A very simple test would be to take a gun and walk up to everyone you meet and point it at them and ask them if you would like you to kill them. I can also guarentee that barring the mentally unstable, or mentally brainwashed, practically everyone will tell you NO! If you ask them if they think it is 'wrong', they will tell you yes. Now you have outside verification of a moral judgment, one that seems to be pretty universal.. and could be called, for all intents and purposes, objective morality. Not because it's based upon how many people agree with it, but because ALL normal people agree with it.


I think you two are working with two different definitions of objective. Language is key.

The Christian believes that something is objectively true, if it is true whether anyone believes it or not. You have stated that you don't believe that in a previous post, to some extent. You both are at an impasse.

[Vorkosigan]

Not because it's based upon how many people agree with it, but because ALL normal people agree with it.

Hmmm...if that isn't a circle, I don't know what is.

Do you think if you performed your little experiment in a concentration camp or in a terminal disease hospice you'd get the same results? Most people, most of the time, don't want to die. But here's a fact: neither do animals. So, ironically, you've picked one 'moral' that can confidently be traced to our common evolution from animals: the will to survive. Surely a powerful instinct should not be confused with an ethical drive.

In any case, what "normal" people do cannot be regarded as the basis for morality. "Normal" is a cultural construct, not a fact-in-the-world.

Vorkosigan

[greyphilosophy]

Morality seems to go against our instincts. I may have a desire to have sex with any woman I see, but my morality would tell me I should not.

~Grey

[c0bra]

06-17-2003 @ 07:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125221#post125221)
JCA:
Once again, there are things that can be found to be Universally testable as being immoral.. and do not require an order from God for everyone to agree..

A very simple test would be to take a gun and walk up to everyone you meet and point it at them and ask them if you would like you to kill them. I can also guarentee that barring the mentally unstable, or mentally brainwashed, practically everyone will tell you NO! If you ask them if they think it is 'wrong', they will tell you yes. Now you have outside verification of a moral judgment, one that seems to be pretty universal.. and could be called, for all intents and purposes, objective morality. Not because it's based upon how many people agree with it, but because ALL normal people agree with it.


This is mere question begging. What you're essentially saying is that you can determine that objective moral values exist without God by determining that a sufficiently large number of people hold to those values. However, it could be the case that the large number of people hold to those values because the values come from God, regardless of the persons' beliefs.

This seems to be a common theme in your posts. The fact that a person has morals and does not believe in God does not go to show that it is possible to have morals apart from God, it only shows that you can have morals while not believing in God. The question of where the morals come from still remains.

I would love it if a non-theist were to reply to this thread and delve into the deep-ontic level of where exactly morals held on a atheistic basis can transition from is to ought. The fact that we hold such values in high esteem whether they be culturally differential or universally whole does nothing to explain the oughtness these moral values provide, nor the objectivity that they may hold.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 04:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128700#post128700)
c0bra:

I would love it if a non-theist were to reply to this thread and delve into the deep-ontic level of where exactly morals held on a atheistic basis can transition from is to ought. The fact that we hold such values in high esteem whether they be culturally differential or universally whole does nothing to explain the oughtness these moral values provide, nor the objectivity that they may hold.
Basically I don't think that theists or non-theists have any basis for truly objective morality. In the case of the theist, morality is still subject to the decree of God. While for all intents and purposes this makes morality independant of human minds, that does not detach them from the mind of God. Why is it wrong to sin? Because God says so, that's why. What is sin? Whatever God says it is.

Now, from a non-theists perspective, it is relatively (pun intended) simple to establish a basis for morality akin to the Golden Rule. Its self-evident that if you feel certain deeds would be undesireable if done unto your own person then it would be wise not to propogate the existence or awareness of those deeds in the universe in which you exist. Note that this morality is still subjectively based, and requires no divine mandate.

Yours,
Garth

[wwatts]

Basically I don't think that theists or non-theists have any basis for truly objective morality. In the case of the theist, morality is still subject to the decree of God. While for all intents and purposes this makes morality independant of human minds, that does not detach them from the mind of God. Why is it wrong to sin? Because God says so, that's why. What is sin? Whatever God says it is.

Yours,
Garth

That's divine command theory. What about if morality is based on God's unchanging character.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 07:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128888#post128888)
wwatts:

That's divine command theory. What about if morality is based on God's unchanging character.
I don't see how that's any different. Morality is still subject to whatever God's character might be. Seems to me that all it really amounts to is an attempt dress God up in some human concepts in order to define away the problem. The proposition that God's nature is eternally unchanging is entirely unfalisifiable anyway since whatever observations we might be able to make of this nature - no matter how contradictory or inconsistent they might be with other observations - they can be simply delcared to have always been part of the nature of God. Furthermore I think it is obvious from a comparison of the words and deeds of Jehovah in the OT to the words and deeds of Jesus in the NT that if these are supposed to be one and the same entity then its nature is hardly unchanging.

Yours,
Garth

[wwatts]

Today @ 07:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128913#post128913)
garthoverman:


I don't see how that's any different. Morality is still subject to whatever God's character might be.


I don't think that morality is subject to whatever god's character might be, I think it is his character.


Seems to me that all it really amounts to is an attempt dress God up in some human concepts in order to define away the problem.

As long as it is possible, it doesn't matter how we came about knowing it. If we relate the origins of a belief with the necessary falseness/trueness of that belief, then we have committed a genetic fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html


The proposition that God's nature is eternally unchanging is entirely unfalisifiable


Wait a minute, it sounds like you hold a premise like this one:

p1) In order for A to be true, it must be falsifiable

But I think the main premise of logic is not falsifiable. Besides, I don't think you hold (p1). So what are you saying?


anyway since whatever observations we might be able to make of this nature - no matter how contradictory or inconsistent they might be with other observations - they can be simply delcared to have always been part of the nature of God. Furthermore I think it is obvious from a comparison of the words and deeds of Jehovah in the OT to the words and deeds of Jesus in the NT that if these are supposed to be one and the same entity then its nature is hardly unchanging.

Yours,
Garth

There only needs to be *one* unchanging moral property of Gods character in order for there to be an objective morality. You could say that whenever human beings torture innocent children for pleasure, it is wrong, and also say that is consistant throughout the bible.

Besides, a theist need not believe in the inerrancy of the bible or christianity for that matter.

[c0bra]

Today @ 06:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128818#post128818)
garthoverman:


Basically I don't think that theists or non-theists have any basis for truly objective morality. In the case of the theist, morality is still subject to the decree of God. While for all intents and purposes this makes morality independant of human minds, that does not detach them from the mind of God. Why is it wrong to sin? Because God says so, that's why. What is sin? Whatever God says it is.

(I see wwatts has already replied in this fashion, but I'm going to anyways)
I would agree that under the weak version of the divine-command theory, theistic morality can fall prey to Euthyphro's dilemma. But if you root morality in God's perfect character, I believe you can set a sound basis for defeating both the arbitrariness and autonomy horns. God's commands are not arbitrary because they conform to his unchanging, eternal character, and His character is not autonomous of himself. He simply does that which is in accordance to His character without consulting an ontologically separate system of values.

A this point one might attempt to shift the dilemma on to God's character: is God's character good because it's good, or good because it's God's character? I think this is a moot objection. Under the presupposition that God exists, in order to bring God's character into question you would first have to assume that your capacity for making correct moral judgements is sound and functioning as God intended, but if God's character is questionable then so are your moral faculties and they are inadquate for judging anything lest the judgement be flawed. Therefore, the question becomes moot.


Now, from a non-theists perspective, it is relatively (pun intended) simple to establish a basis for morality akin to the Golden Rule. Its self-evident that if you feel certain deeds would be undesireable if done unto your own person then it would be wise not to propogate the existence or awareness of those deeds in the universe in which you exist. Note that this morality is still subjectively based, and requires no divine mandate.


I still think this commits the naturalistic fallacy, is does not entail ought. You have to provide a basis for that transition. While reason alone based upon the golden rule may be a sufficient standard of morality, it cannot tell me why I should have to adhere to it. It assumes basic equality between all peoples but where does that idea come from? Even if you say that the golden rule is only used for the survival of the race, on what basis would you say that that is a good thing?

[garthoverman]

Today @ 07:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128935#post128935)
wwatts:

I don't think that morality is subject to whatever god's character might be, I think it is his character.
That's not what you said before. Still, I think this identification is merely defining away the problem or replacing an unknown with an unknowable.


As long as it is possible, it doesn't matter how we came about knowing it. If we relate the origins of a belief with the necessary falseness/trueness of that belief, then we have committed a genetic fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html
Of course it matters how we came to know about it. If we are only able to take God's word on what his nature is then we must have a method to objecitvely test the reliability of that word to insure that its not false. How can we know that God isn't decieving us? Because its not in his nature? That begs the question.


Wait a minute, it sounds like you hold a premise like this one:

p1) In order for A to be true, it must be falsifiable
Not necessarily, but a theory that explains everything explains nothing (Karl Popper).

But I think the main premise of logic is not falsifiable. Besides, I don't think you hold (p1). So what are you saying?
I'm saying that when it comes to theorizing about reality, if it is impossbile for our theory to fail, then our theory amounts to a tautology which is basically just an agreement among definitions and not a real contribution to our knowledge. For example:Theory 1: The real world contains all that is real.
I can't falsify this theory because doing so would require that one definition of "real" didn't match the other. Obviously it is true, but it still fails to make any sort of valid deduction that contributes meaningfully to our knowledge.


There only needs to be *one* unchanging moral property of Gods character in order for there to be an objective morality. You could say that whenever human beings torture innocent children for pleasure, it is wrong, and also say that is consistant throughout the bible.
Where is this stated in the Bible?

Furthermore, all this would suffice to do is to establish the absolute-ness of the immorality of the action, not necessarity its objectivity. Its measure of immorality is still subject to whatever God's character happens to be.

Besides, a theist need not believe in the inerrancy of the bible or christianity for that matter.
For one thing they need to know reliably that their God is not deceiving them in revealing His nature to them.

Yours,
Garth

[wwatts]

Of course it matters how we came to know about it. If we are only able to take God's word on what his nature is then we must have a method to objecitvely test the reliability of that word to insure that its not false. How can we know that God isn't decieving us? Because its not in his nature? That begs the question.



Wait a minute, maybe we are talking about two different things. I'm saying that morality indeed exists as a personal agent's character. Ie God is love etc.

You are saying that we need to have a way to test this in order for it to be true? I don't think you believe that do you? It can be true regardless of whether we know it or not ...

Now do we have a way of knowing objective moral values? I think so. I think it is the same we have a way of objectively seeing something. Your cognitive faculties tell you something is wrong, just like your cognitive falcuties tell you that you see something. Your cognitivie faculties are probably correct. Do you hold this premise:

1) My cognitive faculties are generally reliable (or probably correct)

If you don't then you are probably wrong or you have a defeater for everything you know (everything is inscrutable)


Not necessarily, but a theory that explains everything explains nothing (Karl Popper).




I'm saying that when it comes to theorizing about reality, if it is impossbile for our theory to fail, then our theory amounts to a tautology which is basically just an agreement among definitions and not a real contribution to our knowledge.


I'm glad that you didn't say that the main premise of logic needed to be falsifiable. So here is my argument for Karl

1) If Karl Popper is right, All propositions need to be falsifiable
2) The main premise of logic is not falsifiable
3) Therefore Karl Popper is not right.

Also, what do you mean by falsifiable? Surely you don't mean that everything needs to be empiricallyfalsifiable?

And if you don't mean that, then the premise

1) Morality is God's Character

can certainly be false? You could raise all types of arguments against the existance of God and falsify it as well! So it is falsifiable in that sense



For example:Theory 1: The real world contains all that is real.
I can't falsify this theory because doing so would require that one definition of "real" didn't match the other. Obviously it is true, but it still fails to make any sort of valid deduction that contributes meaningfully to our knowledge.


I see what the problem is. You are thinking that all propositions must be a conclusion (deduction) from other propositions. IE

P) In order for A to be true, it must be proven by B

But I deny this? Don't you?


Where is this stated in the Bible?


Implied. Furthermore, I think there can be a specific morality for humans, and a separate one for God. As long as that is possible, you can do all sorts of things with the text.


Furthermore, all this would suffice to do is to establish the absolute-ness of the immorality of the action, not necessarity its objectivity. Its measure of immorality is still subject to whatever God's character happens to be.


I think what you are trying to say is that morality is arbitrary if it exists as God's Character.

My premise is that objective moral values can at least exist as an unchanging moral agent. I don't think you have disproven this premise yet.


For one thing they need to know reliably that their God is not deceiving them in revealing His nature to them.

Yours,
Garth

Thats a totally different premise. I think we should examine one at a time.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 08:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128991#post128991)
wwatts:


Wait a minute, maybe we are talking about two different things. I'm saying that morality indeed exists as a personal agent's character. Ie God is love etc.
But that's not what you first said. You first said that morality was based on God's character, then you said that is was God's character.

You are saying that we need to have a way to test this in order for it to be true? I don't think you believe that do you? It can be true regardless of whether we know it or not ...
Of course it can be true. The problem is that we cannot know it to be false if it is indeed false. We are at the mercy of however this being wants to represent itself to us.

Now do we have a way of knowing objective moral values? I think so. I think it is the same we have a way of objectively seeing something. Your cognitive faculties tell you something is wrong, just like your cognitive falcuties tell you that you see something. Your cognitivie faculties are probably correct.
Objectivity has nothing to do with the reliability of an individuals cognitive faculties. Instead, it requires the ability to be measured apart from human perception and cognition. The frequency of red light can be so measured -- the redness of that light cannot.

Do you hold this premise:

1) My cognitive faculties are generally reliable (or probably correct)

If you don't then you are probably wrong or you have a defeater for everything you know (everything is inscrutable)
I hold the premise to be true, yes, but this premise is not enough to objectify morality.


I'm glad that you didn't say that the main premise of logic needed to be falsifiable.
But that's precisely why valid logic can yield false conclusions.

So here is my argument for Karl

1) If Karl Popper is right, All propositions need to be falsifiable
2) The main premise of logic is not falsifiable
3) Therefore Karl Popper is not right.
I deny premise one.

Also, what do you mean by falsifiable? Surely you don't mean that everything needs to be empiricallyfalsifiable?
Objectively falsifiable.

And if you don't mean that, then the premise

1) Morality is God's Character

can certainly be false? You could raise all types of arguments against the existance of God and falsify it as well! So it is falsifiable in that sense
I have been operating under the premise that God exists for this little exercise. My main qualm is with the claim that we can reliably know this God's attributes. Since the entirety of the perceptible universe is subject to God's will (since he created it) there are no means of revealing a falsehood that God has instantiated in reality to appear as truth.


I see what the problem is. You are thinking that all propositions must be a conclusion (deduction) from other propositions. IE

P) In order for A to be true, it must be proven by B

But I deny this? Don't you?
Sure do.


Implied.
Insufficient.

Furthermore, I think there can be a specific morality for humans, and a separate one for God. As long as that is possible, you can do all sorts of things with the text.
How can there be a seperate morality for God? I thought God was morality? Seems like some real mental gymnastics.


I think what you are trying to say is that morality is arbitrary if it exists as God's Character.
Not ultimately aribtrary, but unknowable.

My premise is that objective moral values can at least exist as an unchanging moral agent. I don't think you have disproven this premise yet.
Values are subjective by definition. IOW, you need a valuer for values to exist. If an unchanging valuer exists, then at most you can say that everything has a moral value in the mind of this valuer. You haven't succeeded in demonstrating 1) that we can reliably know what values this agent holds, and 2) that anyone else is bound to agree with whatever values this agent holds.

Thats a totally different premise. I think we should examine one at a time.
I think it is crucial to to consider in determining whether or not there is any point in pontificating about the attributes of this supposedly absolute moral arbiter.

Yours,
Garth

[garthoverman]

Today @ 07:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128941#post128941)
c0bra:



(I see wwatts has already replied in this fashion, but I'm going to anyways)
I would agree that under the weak version of the divine-command theory, theistic morality can fall prey to Euthyphro's dilemma. But if you root morality in God's perfect character, I believe you can set a sound basis for defeating both the arbitrariness and autonomy horns. God's commands are not arbitrary because they conform to his unchanging, eternal character, and His character is not autonomous of himself. He simply does that which is in accordance to His character without consulting an ontologically separate system of values.
Then the problem becomes arriving at reliable knowledge of God's character. Since we cannot know to be false that which God desires to appear as truth to us, reliable knowledge is impossible.

<snip>

I still think this commits the naturalistic fallacy, is does not entail ought. You have to provide a basis for that transition. While reason alone based upon the golden rule may be a sufficient standard of morality, it cannot tell me why I should have to adhere to it.
The "why" is self-evident. If you don't like theivery in the universe, yet you are a theif, then you've obviously got some problems with cognitive dissonance.


It assumes basic equality between all peoples but where does that idea come from? Even if you say that the golden rule is only used for the survival of the race, on what basis would you say that that is a good thing?
A purely subjective basis. The Golden Rule is subjectively based, I never said differently.

Yours,
Garth

[wwatts]

My premise is that objective moral values can at least exist as an unchanging moral agent. I don't think you have disproven this premise yet. ”


To be sure, let me state that the premise is objective morals exist as the character of an unchanging moral agent. Given that that unchanging being can't value anything but things in accordance his own character, Objective moral values are those things which that agent values. Forget about the rest, lets concentrate on the main premise. Skip the value since that implies divine command theory, and is causing way too much problems.

Ok now here are some premises to see where you disagree

1) A personal agent has a character
2) Character may contain 'oughts' a-priori and for no reason at all.
3) A neccessary being exists
4) A personal agent P can be that neccessary being
5) P's character is neccessary to P
6) Morals are 'oughts'
7) Therefore necessary morals can exist.

What do you deny so far?


You haven't succeeded in demonstrating 1) that we can reliably know what values this agent holds, and


Why argue about something, if it is not possible for it to exist? To put it in other words,

p) It is meaningless to talk about properties of T if T is logically impossible

It's like talking about the properties square circles, like you said.


2) that anyone else is bound to agree with whatever values this agent holds.


People being bound to agree is totally besides this point. You will have to come up with some syllogism in order to make it logically necessary for people to agree with an objective moral value.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 10:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129075#post129075)
wwatts:



To be sure, let me state that the premise is objective morals exist as the character of an unchanging moral agent. Given that that unchanging being can't value anything but things in accordance his own character, Objective moral values are those things which that agent values.
"Objective moral values" is a contradiction in terms. As I said before, and you snipped, values are subjective by definition. They require a valuer in order to exist. Now, the valuer may exist objectively, but the values are still subject to the existence of the valuer.


Forget about the rest, lets concentrate on the main premise. Skip the value since that implies divine command theory, and is causing way too much problems.
Its a problem for your argument, not a problem for me.

Ok now here are some premises to see where you disagree

1) A personal agent has a character
2) Character may contain 'oughts' a-priori and for no reason at all.
3) A neccessary being exists
4) A personal agent P can be that neccessary being
5) P's character is neccessary to P
6) Morals are 'oughts'
7) Therefore necessary morals can exist.

What do you deny so far?

I deny 3 and therefore 4 and therefore 7.

Why argue about something, if it is not possible for it to exist? To put it in other words,

p) It is meaningless to talk about properties of T if T is logically impossible

It's like talking about the properties square circles, like you said
The point is that if we can decide that it is possible for the moral arbiter to exist, yet impossible to know its values reliably, then considering the possibility of the arbiter's existence is meaningless conjecture.

Lastly, I will tell you that I grow weary of your syllogisms and your aversion from dealing with my points in a direct fashion. I prefer a more point-by-point dialogue, and I prefer that the points that I go to the trouble to note be actually addressed instead of brushed aside. If you are as adverse to open dialogue as I am to dealing with your syllogisms, then I think we should both simply desist. Just let me know how (or if) you want to proceed.

Yours,
Garth

[Morpheus]

to garth. you put forward many intelligent and interesting ideas.

Basically I don't think that theists or non-theists have any basis for truly objective morality. In the case of the theist, morality is still subject to the decree of God. While for all intents and purposes this makes morality independant of human minds, that does not detach them from the mind of God. Why is it wrong to sin? Because God says so, that's why. What is sin? Whatever God says it is.

the idea, as others have said, is not that whatever god says is morally right just because it is god who says it, but that whatever god says is right because it comes from his moral nature. the basic argument goes like this:

1) god is flawless (common definition of the monotheistic god).
2) god has a moral nature (common attribute of god; he is not amoral).
3) god's moral nature is flawless (from 1 & 2).
4) god's commands with repsect to morality originate from his moral nature.
5) god's commands with respect to morality are flawless (from 3 & 4).

and even though, strictly speaking, morality is still subject to god's moral nature, i think morals can still be called objective in reference to us as human beings, because they are not subject to any human thoughts or whims. in other words, if morality comes from, say, the christian god, it is wrong for humans to murder regardless of any amount of human subjectivity with regard to this idea.

Now, from a non-theists perspective, it is relatively (pun intended) simple to establish a basis for morality akin to the Golden Rule. Its self-evident that if you feel certain deeds would be undesireable if done unto your own person then it would be wise not to propogate the existence or awareness of those deeds in the universe in which you exist. Note that this morality is still subjectively based, and requires no divine mandate.

i don't see how this qualifies as morality in any meaningful way. there seems to be a fallacious jump from "it is the case that i would not desire deed x to be done unto me" to "i ought not do x." not doing x may be good for my well-being or help me survive, but then the question just becomes "why ought i value my well-being or my survival?" furthermore, the atheist needs to give some account for how a human being can possess free will, because without free will "ought-ness" becomes a meaningless concept.

[c0bra]

06-20-2003 @ 10:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129052#post129052)
garthoverman:


Then the problem becomes arriving at reliable knowledge of God's character. Since we cannot know to be false that which God desires to appear as truth to us, reliable knowledge is impossible.


This is a good question. I would say there are a few reasons to assume God's goodness out of hand. I haven't really studied into it that much, but I will since you've raised the question.

The Platonist Argument (Aquinas' Fourth Way)
I'm going to quote this at length since I don't really have a good way to paraphrase it:
God is identical to the property of goodness itself. There must be such a property, since good things do exist. Since God is the first cause of all good things, God must be good Himself. Since God is absolutely simple, God is identical to His own essence. Hence, God is identical to His own goodness. Since God is the first cause, God's goodness is the universal form of goodness. Therefore, God is identical to the property of goodness itself. The property of goodness must be perfectly good. Thus, God is perfectly good.

Another argument would be the fact that a perfectly good God explains reliable moral knowledge. This seems circular, to say that we have objective morality because of God and the fact that we have objective morality shows a perfect being at it's root, but I think that if we hold our morality to be reliable in any sense, a wholly good being at the center of our morality who wishes us to have useful and reliable moral knowledge is certainly admissable.

Third, it could be said that if God were not perfect, if he were a mixture of good and evil, then we would not see the assymetry between the two that we have. But since we do have this assymmetry, I think it is best explained by a completely good God who is without evil.


The &quot;why&quot; is self-evident. If you don't like theivery in the universe, yet you are a theif, then you've obviously got some problems with cognitive dissonance.


If the why is self-evident, then you won't mind spelling it out for me. Perhaps I am just unable to grasp it. I don't think I have yet seen an answer to why I feel an oughtness to adhere to moral principles. If they are completely subjective and vary from person to person or from culture to culture, what binds me to them? If two people differ on a moral issue, and subjective morality says that for each person, their own view is correct, then it would seem to me that anything is permissible. I may feel that thievery is wrong but there's no reason for me to not steal, other than fear of punishment. It may be in my self-interest to steal. But if we go back into the issue of the golden-rule, we still have not covered why the preservation of the race is a good thing, nor why I should deny my indulgences for the betterment of the people.


A purely subjective basis. The Golden Rule is subjectively based, I never said differently.


Then it is not a rule, but an arbitrary maxim. What if I am a sado-masochist? I may derive pleasure from pain, but is it right for me to pain others in an attempt for them to receive pleasure? It maybe be the case that they don't receive pleasure the same was as I do.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 03:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130660#post130660)
c0bra:



This is a good question. I would say there are a few reasons to assume God's goodness out of hand. I haven't really studied into it that much, but I will since you've raised the question.

The Platonist Argument (Aquinas' Fourth Way)
I'm going to quote this at length since I don't really have a good way to paraphrase it:
God is identical to the property of goodness itself. There must be such a property, since good things do exist. Since God is the first cause of all good things, God must be good Himself. Since God is absolutely simple, God is identical to His own essence. Hence, God is identical to His own goodness. Since God is the first cause, God's goodness is the universal form of goodness. Therefore, God is identical to the property of goodness itself. The property of goodness must be perfectly good. Thus, God is perfectly good.

Another argument would be the fact that a perfectly good God explains reliable moral knowledge. This seems circular, to say that we have objective morality because of God and the fact that we have objective morality shows a perfect being at it's root, but I think that if we hold our morality to be reliable in any sense, a wholly good being at the center of our morality who wishes us to have useful and reliable moral knowledge is certainly admissable.
As far as I can tell, these amount to a priori postulations that have no real basis. As I explained to Morpheus in a different thread, postulating God's goodness is like postulating the falsity of solipsism. There is no rational basis at its root, but it's necessary in oder to have a coherent worldview.

Third, it could be said that if God were not perfect, if he were a mixture of good and evil, then we would not see the assymetry between the two that we have. But since we do have this assymmetry, I think it is best explained by a completely good God who is without evil.
In my experience, "perfect" is a hodge-podge kind of word. It means whatever its user wants it to mean. It is impossible to define "perfect" non-circularly. We might as well say that everything is perfect.

If the why is self-evident, then you won't mind spelling it out for me. Perhaps I am just unable to grasp it. I don't think I have yet seen an answer to why I feel an oughtness to adhere to moral principles. If they are completely subjective and vary from person to person or from culture to culture, what binds me to them? If two people differ on a moral issue, and subjective morality says that for each person, their own view is correct, then it would seem to me that anything is permissible. I may feel that thievery is wrong but there's no reason for me to not steal, other than fear of punishment. It may be in my self-interest to steal. But if we go back into the issue of the golden-rule, we still have not covered why the preservation of the race is a good thing, nor why I should deny my indulgences for the betterment of the people.
The why is intrinsic in acting according to one's own personal values -- which it is impossible not to do. If I value love in the universe, then I ought to love. I value charity, therefore I ought to be charitable. I abhor killing, therefore I ought not to kill. If you feel thievery is wrong, that is the reason you shouldn't steal.

Now, values do not exist in isolation either. It may be that your value to be fed is greater than your abhorance of thievery, and therefore you might bring yourself to steal food if you were starving. Ultimately, however, you will act in accordance with your own values, and those dictate what you ought and ought not to do.


Then it is not a rule, but an arbitrary maxim.
I don't think so. I think its more akin to an analytic proposition. It describes what is, and what is is the means for deciding what ought to be.

What if I am a sado-masochist? I may derive pleasure from pain, but is it right for me to pain others in an attempt for them to receive pleasure? It maybe be the case that they don't receive pleasure the same was as I do.
That may be, but the answer to "who is right" will still depend on who you ask.

Yours,
Garth

[JCA]

06-22-2003 @ 01:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129930#post129930)
Morpheus:

i don't see how this qualifies as morality in any meaningful way. there seems to be a fallacious jump from &quot;it is the case that i would not desire deed x to be done unto me&quot; to &quot;i ought not do x.&quot; not doing x may be good for my well-being or help me survive, but then the question just becomes &quot;why ought i value my well-being or my survival?&quot; furthermore, the atheist needs to give some account for how a human being can possess free will, because without free will &quot;ought-ness&quot; becomes a meaningless concept.

I've been following what has been and is being said, and so far I haven't seen any indication that my position that ALL humans can come to 'morality' is wrong.

The quote above wobbles my mind :teeth:

The question "Why should I value my survival?" has me at a loss for type! The reasons for valuing ones survival are numerous.. the vast, vast majority of people do not like death.. as I said previously, to do so you have to either have a mental disorder, or be in a position where death becomes preferable (such as wanting to die when being tortured etc.). What about watching our children grow up? How about wanting to learn about the world (because it's there)? What about not liking the kinds of things that would lead one to NOT survive? I find the question to be rather silly.. and in return would ask: "Why should one NOT value their survival?"

Furthermore, why would an Atheist need to account for Free Will? In the most basic terms, Free Will is evident - especially to a Christian - as people are excercising it and not coming to God!! If anything, according to all the Christian wisdom there is, it is "stupid" not to come to God - and rather than believe everyone who isn't Christian to be stupid, I believe it is because they are excercising the human ability to choose based upon a learning factor that is subjective.. much like morality; IMHO :teeth:

As I stated previously, or elswhere, these are aspects of our lives that are both rarely discussed in the Bible, and even more rarely as simple as black and white. Free Will, Morality, Emotion, etc.. are all tools given to us at birth.. either just by the fact that we are human and have evolved an 'intellect', or by God - as the Theist prefers.

To me, it's both, but that's another thread.. but the bottom line is, how they are perceived and how we use them.. no one has a bigger "hammer" than the other person.. one just might hit harder, or have better aim is all...

IN Love and Peace

JCA

[Morpheus]

to jca.

I've been following what has been and is being said, and so far I haven't seen any indication that my position that ALL humans can come to 'morality' is wrong.

and i don't necessarily think that it is, if what you mean is that it is possible for all humans to act morally. i would agree with this. however, i would disagree if you mean to say that all humans, regardless of their beliefs, can provide a rational justification for their moral views, as opposed to the opposing moral views they do not hold.

The question "Why should I value my survival?" has me at a loss for type! The reasons for valuing ones survival are numerous.. the vast, vast majority of people do not like death..

but then the question is just moved back another level - why ought i value something (e.g., life, as opposed to death) simply because it brings me happiness, or because it keeps me from something i do not like? for the non-theist, i do not think there is ever an ultimate answer to such a question, and that is why i do not think there is a rational non-theistic justification for why certain actions are more moral than others. the theist is presumably in a better position because he can justify his belief that certain actions are more moral than others by appealing to a being who transcends our physical reality and whose flawless moral nature provides the objective basis for what ought to be valued.

What about watching our children grow up? How about wanting to learn about the world (because it's there)? What about not liking the kinds of things that would lead one to NOT survive?

but from an atheistic perspective, ultimately, why i ought i want to watch my children grow up, or want to learn about the world, etc.? because it makes me happy? if so, then why i ought i value what makes me happy? iow, if from our perspective within the physical universe there is no "objective oughtness" that transcends human experience, what makes any value superior to its alternative?

Furthermore, why would an Atheist need to account for Free Will?

because without free will, the question of ought (which is intrinsic to morality) becomes meaningless - there can be no "ought" if whatever i do is the only thing that i can do, based on external circumstances outside my control.

Free Will is evident - especially to a Christian - as people are excercising it and not coming to God!!

but from an atheistic position, free will is not evident - in fact, most atheists i've encountered view free will as an illusion. and if one holds that humans do not have free will, then he cannot provide a coherent picture of morality.

If anything, according to all the Christian wisdom there is, it is "stupid" not to come to God - and rather than believe everyone who isn't Christian to be stupid, I believe it is because they are excercising the human ability to choose based upon a learning factor that is subjective.. much like morality; IMHO

don't get me wrong, i am a christian and i do think free will exists for human beings. i don't think all non-christians are stupid, and i do agree that they choose for themselves (in most cases) to be non-christians. however, the point i'm making is that most atheists do not posit the existence of free will, and without this factor there can be no morality. morality is based on ought-ness, and the concept of ought is meaningless if there is no true choice involved. therefore, without free will there is no rational justification for morality.

regards.

[greyphilosophy]

I don't feel this has been adaquately addressed yet, so here goes:


In the case of the theist, morality is still subject to the decree of God


Something that is subject to God is not subjective in the same sense as something that is subjective to man's fancy. Something that you would say is subjective because it is subject to God would still fit the catagory of objective. God is the author of everything that is objective AND subjective, and the subjective things God created/led to exist are objectively subjective. This makes no sense if you have no definition of objective though, so here's one for you from dictionary.com:


ob·jec·tive adj.

1. Of or having to do with a material object.

2. Having actual existence or reality.

3a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair.

3b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.


All this connotes something that is true. Perhaps you could substitute the word true where you have seen the word objective.


~Grey