A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[Charles]

So Charles from where do you launch your attack? I have asked this a number of times now.

And I have answered a number of times.

And since you claim knowledge and logic wont do, I think it is fair to say that you ask for something that is not reasonable.

But let me ask you the same question: From where do you launch an attack (that is not just claims or at best circular)?

[seer]

And I have answered a number of times.

And since you claim knowledge and logic wont do, I think it is fair to say that you ask for something that is not reasonable.

It is not that knowledge and logic won't do but how would you compete with God on these grounds when it came to moral opinions?

But let me ask you the same question: From where do you launch an attack (that is not just claims or at best circular)?

I'm not sure what you are asking - launch an attack against what?

[Charles]

It is not that knowledge and logic won't do but how would you compete with God on these grounds when it came to moral opinions?

Interesting... Because you recently wrote the following:

And again Charles, you have no real ground from which to launch an attack against the acts or commands of God. Not based on your culturally indoctrinated moral sense, not based on knowledge, and certainly not based on logic - as I have demonstrated.

The word "contradiction" comes to mind...

Apart from that your statement is based on the idea that God exists which you cannot prove (or if you can, I'd be very interested). So you are claiming that something for which you can give reasons (that is many types of ethical thinking, not just Kant or utilitarism) should justify itself for attacking something for which no reason can be given. I don't get the logic in that. But it appears your belief in logic is muddy at best.

I'm not sure what you are asking - launch an attack against what?

Launch an attack based on a proven, not circular, not just claimed-to exist concept of God and his goodnes against any other ethical theory.

[seer]

Interesting... Because you recently wrote the following:

The word "contradiction" comes to mind...

Let me make it clear, I'm not against using logic but you could not use that to launch a successful attack against God's moral opinion.

Apart from that your statement is based on the idea that God exists which you cannot prove (or if you can, I'd be very interested). So you are claiming that something for which you can give reasons (that is many types of ethical thinking, not just Kant or utilitarism) should justify itself for attacking something for which no reason can be given. I don't get the logic in that. But it appears your belief in logic is muddy at best.

Like I said Charles, I'm not here to prove God, heck I can not even prove that what goes on in my mind corresponds to reality. And I will repeat, none of these other systems lead to universal moral truths. Your own link made the same case (which I read twice, thank you). But if there is a God akin to classic theism then the possibility of universal moral truths exist.

Launch an attack based on a proven, not circular, not just claimed-to exist concept of God and his goodnes against any other ethical theory.

Charles, do you know what the Münchhausen trilemma is? Every moral argument I have seen eventually is impaled on one of the three horns. Your horn may be different than my horn but it would be no moral rational.

[Charles]

Let me make it clear, I'm not against using logic but you could not use that to launch a successful attack against God's moral opinion.

So, now at least you are clear. The fact that you contradicted yourself remains.

[seer]

So, now at least you are clear. The fact that you contradicted yourself remains.

I think you got my point though.

[JimL]

Charles, God is not a philosophy, He is a person in the deepest sense of the word. Again God's moral nature generally (save sin and selfishness) resonates with ours, His are image bearers, so it quite natural for like to praise like or be drawn to it. We see our attributes in Him except to a greater or infinite degree - and that is praise worthy.



But it is not anything goes, since God's moral character is immutable. God couldn't lie or say that lying is good since it would violate His nature which is impossible.



This is the problem, not only will you not be able to demonstrate this objective standard - how do you then demonstrate that this standard is the morally correct one? Do we have a higher standard to by which we can judge those moral principles? And on and on. So instead of giving in to infinite regression you will have to claim that moral questions must stop somewhere - at this particular objective standard. But why not just stop at God's moral nature? And as far as I know moral truths only exist in, or are formulated, in minds - they have no independent existence.

God, or the objective moral standard, is not good, unless it is good for us as a people, and so, since it comes down to reason, a la Leibniz, i.e. that morals, i.e. rules of behavior, are relative to the best interests of human beings, human society, then god is unnecessary as an objective standard.

[seer]

God, or the objective moral standard, is not good, unless it is good for us as a people, and so, since it comes down to reason, a la Leibniz, i.e. that morals, i.e. rules of behavior, are relative to the best interests of human beings, human society, then god is unnecessary as an objective standard.

Jim, that doesn't follow. Yes subjectively we would like what is best for us - but so? And who decides what is best? Like I have asked - if an alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food would that be a moral wrong? Of course not - so what is good or bad for humanity is subjective. Of course as Christians we believe what is best for humanity is to be saved and live forever...Besides in your world we are no more important or valuable and any other species that went extinct before us.

[JimL]

Jim, that doesn't follow. Yes subjectively we would like what is best for us - but so? And who decides what is best?

Nobody decides, what is best, morally speaking, is objective regardless of any one persons opinion. Morals are about interelationships, so they are not about what one person thinks is best for himself, they are about what is in the best interests of the group.

Like I have asked - if an alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food would that be a moral wrong? Of course not - so what is good or bad for humanity is subjective. Of course as Christians we believe what is best for humanity is to be saved and live forever...Besides in your world we are no more important or valuable and any other species that went extinct before us.

They, aliens, aren't humans, they would be their own group, it would only be immoral if they behaved like that with each other. Why would they care any more about us than we care about the animals that we harvest for food. Of course morals can be extended to outside groups if it is found to be in the 'extenders' own best interests to do so, or so long as it is not detrimental to them.
But you are correct, other than to ourselves of course, we are no more important than the dinosaurs that went extinct millions of years ago.

[Tassman]

Jim, that doesn't follow. Yes subjectively we would like what is best for us - but so?

It’s not a matter of “liking what is best for us” as much as our naturally occurring genetic predisposition for survival.

And who decides what is best?

Your answer would be that “God decides what’s best”. But this is not a viable option given you can’t show that your source of morality even exists.

Like I have asked - if an alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food would that be a moral wrong? Of course not - so what is good or bad for humanity is subjective.

No, it’s simply an instinctive reaction for creatures to resist being eaten.

Of course as Christians we believe what is best for humanity is to be saved and live forever.

Fantasy wish fulfilment! Sad! All living things die, there’s no credible reason to think otherwise.

..Besides in your world we are no more important or valuable and any other species that went extinct before us.

Our survival as a species is instinctively important to us, but in the overall scheme of things there’s no reason to think that we’re more important than any other living creature.

[seer]

Nobody decides, what is best, morally speaking, is objective regardless of any one persons opinion. Morals are about interelationships, so they are not about what one person thinks is best for himself, they are about what is in the best interests of the group.

You mean the best interest of the group like with higher primates where the strong and fit dominate and the weak and infirmed are allowed to die off. Got it...

But you are correct, other than to ourselves of course, we are no more important than the dinosaurs that went extinct millions of years ago.

Then our survival is of no more importance then theirs.

[seer]

You know I give those unbelievers who are searching for universal moral truths credit - I think intuitively they understand that moral relativism is bankrupt as an ethical theory. Which makes it even more sad that they don't embrace the God that embodies they very truths they so long for. But there is always hope...

[Charles]

You know I give those unbelievers who are searching for universal moral truths credit - I think intuitively they understand thatcir moral relativism is bankrupt as an ethical theory. Which makes it even more sad that they don't embrace the God that embodies they very truths they so long for. But there is always hope...

I wonder how you can state for a fact that God embodies the truth we are looking for, when you cannot even establish for a fact that God exists.

Then, in your approach, the very truths we are supposedly looking for are circular statements that God is good, because God's nature or character is good.

I am not looking for circular statements about "goodness" dependent on an entity that may not even exist. And when those "goodnes" statements include claims that babies should be punished forever in Hell or statements along those lines, I see absolutely nothing of interest. Nor anything that I would even find worthy for reflecting human beings to accept or praise.

Attacking God or just an erroneous idea about him?
I wonder how you can even claim I cannot attack a possibly unfounded circular idea of goodness that contains such horrible statements. There is no rational reason what so ever to support it, while anyone going for some universal moral theory will have at least something to point to.

And you claim I cannot launch an attack against God. But you do not know if he exists, so perhaps I am attacking your made up idea about God and nothing apart from that. You seem to easily presuppose the existence of God in your line of reasoning and then, when asked directly, you admit you cannot prove it. (The Münchhausen trilemma you point to is not an excuse for ignoring the conditions for making statements and turning assumptions into facts. Nor have you proven the claims in it right (which would also appear to be contradictory). So, basically, I do not see how that can help you in any way.)

I honestly think that if some God exists (which cannot be ruled out) then what goes on in most religions is the worst type of blasphemy, since it appears completely unworthy to hold such ideas of him that most religions hold.

No objectives, no ability to distinguish
So, you have been quite good at giving the impression that you have the answer to the questions discussed. But what you really have is dogma in the same way, shape and form that anyone following a religious line of thinking can have and as Leibniz pointed to, if you cannot point to the reason why God is good based on objective values then anything God did could be good (which is why you seem to find it so difficult to find the idea about eternal punishment of babies in Hell absurd). I know you pointed to something God could not do in your opinion. I still think Leibniz’s logic applies to most of what you have been saying.

But there is always hope...

[seer]

I wonder how you can state for a fact that God embodies the truth we are looking for, when you cannot even establish for a fact that God exists.

Then, in your approach, the very truths we are supposedly looking for are circular statements that God is good, because God's nature or character is good.

I am not looking for circular statements about "goodness" dependent on an entity that may not even exist. And when those "goodnes" statements include claims that babies should be punished forever in Hell or statements along those lines, I see absolutely nothing of interest. Nor anything that I would even find worthy for reflecting human beings to accept or praise.

Charles we are discussing a foundation for ethics, mine is God, and yours is? And if you can, define goodness by your lights - I bet I will have you arguing in a circle before long. That is the funny this about moral questions, we always seem to end up arguing in circles. And stop with the babies in hell thing - that is a cheap appeal to emotion. Not worthy of you.

Attacking God or just an erroneous idea about him?
I wonder how you can even claim I cannot attack a possibly unfounded circular idea of goodness that contains such horrible statements. There is no rational reason what so ever to support it, while anyone going for some universal moral theory will have at least something to point to.

And you claim I cannot launch an attack against God. But you do not know if he exists, so perhaps I am attacking your made up idea about God and nothing apart from that. You seem to easily presuppose the existence of God in your line of reasoning and then, when asked directly, you admit you cannot prove it. (The Münchhausen trilemma you point to is not an excuse for ignoring the conditions for making statements and turning assumptions into facts. Nor have you proven the claims in it right (which would also appear to be contradictory). So, basically, I do not see how that can help you in any way.)

I honestly think that if some God exists (which cannot be ruled out) then what goes on in most religions is the worst type of blasphemy, since it appears completely unworthy to hold such ideas of him that most religions hold.

Whether I can prove God or not, the fact remains, without such a being you have no possible source for universal moral truths. That has been my point from the beginning, and a point Charles that you have failed to counter. Why don't you just give it up and embrace moral relativism, like the author in your link. That is the most rational position for the materialist, or the godless. Why the need or desire for universal moral realities?

No objectives, no ability to distinguish
So, you have been quite good at giving the impression that you have the answer to the questions discussed. But what you really have is dogma in the same way, shape and form that anyone following a religious line of thinking can have and as Leibniz pointed to, if you cannot point to the reason why God is good based on objective values then anything God did could be good (which is why you seem to find it so difficult to find the idea about eternal punishment of babies in Hell absurd). I know you pointed to something God could not do in your opinion. I still think Leibniz’s logic applies to most of what you have been saying.

Again, even Jin set you straight about Leibniz’s argument of arbitrariness. Christians believe that God's moral character is immutable - whether you believe it or not is immaterial, to argue that point is a straw man. And the broader point is there that are no objective moral values to compare God's acts to, or to compare your acts to. They don't exist. And every moral good that you believe God has violated is a good that you will have justify - in an objective non-circular manner. Which you won't be able to do. So any argument you use will be circular, thereby being guilty of the same thing you accuse me of.

[Tassman]

You know I give those unbelievers who are searching for universal moral truths credit - I think intuitively they understand that moral relativism is bankrupt as an ethical theory. Which makes it even more sad that they don't embrace the God that embodies they very truths they so long for. But there is always hope...

I think we've all seen how morality embodied in a god has worked out. Not good! There can be no way to resolve conflicts about moral issues when members of competing religions and sects hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive. The only possible solution is the enforced imposition of the “one true religion” upon the rest.