A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[Charles]

Charles we are discussing a foundation for ethics, mine is God, and yours is?

You still cannot claim that God “is” the foundation of your ethics since at least three possible options exist:

1) God does not exist
2) God exists in another way, shape or form than in your belief
3) God exists in the way, shape and form, you believe in

So the correct expression would be something along the lines that God “may” be the foundation. Or "if" (and that is a big IF) he exists in the way you believe, he is the foundation. Since you are yet to make us any the wiser as to why option 3 is correct, there is really no reason for us to prefer that option. The God of option 2 could get mad at us for holding a wrong view about him based on your idea of what God is.

As regards my view I have already given insight into it and answered the questions and obejctions you had. There is some of it you have not replied to. So for you to ask as if it is completely open is not serious.

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?

I have made you aware that I am not a materialist. As an agnostic I do not rule out the possibility of a God beyond the realm of human understanding to exist. I simply hold to it because I find that it corresponds a lot better to reality and that in lines of reasoning it is the view that is most likely to be true. Even if you think I have failed to counter the idea that universal moral values can only exist if God exists, I think I have made it quite obvious that it is rather difficult to see how the sheer fact that God holds something makes it a moral truth. And what we mainly seem to discus is not really what God holds but what seer thinks or believes God holds.

God may disagree with seer
You always use the word God as if it is the answer to all big questions. Thus I cannot allow myself to question him. However, you are doing the same against a lot of other Gods whose existence cannot be proved either. How can you launch an attack against those Gods? How can you even claim, you understand God and is capable of presenting his view? Why should I believe in the moral character of your God and not the moral character of another God?

Babies in hell
Perhaps God is also tired of the fact that you seem to allow for the option of eternal punishment of babies in hell. Perhaps he is wondering why you hold one cannot object such an idea since one was given the ability to reason. Perhaps he will hold that calling my use of it an appeal to emotion completely misses the point that we are able to reflect. Calling the point to such an extreme suffering "cheap" is beyond me. You objected to Kant that according to him we could not lie to the Nazi asking if we were hiding jews in our basement. But pointing to something which is worse not only in numbers but in eternity is "cheap" you hold....

So, I will ask you to reflect on it:

- Why is it fair to punish or allow for the punishment of a baby forever in Hell for something over which it had no control?
- What is the rationality behind it?
- Where is the glory or goodness in it?
- What does it say about the so-called God, who allows it?
- If eternal punishment of babies in Hell is a part of your just universe in which morals exist, I guess perhaps we can review the idea about “goodness”. You claim it is not arbitrary. No one with any dignity would claim the concentration camps were fair or just. You seem to hold that in your just universe, it is fair that one single baby would have to suffer more than they all did in conditions in which the pain will never end. Why is that just?

I allow myself to oppose to the idea both with very basic ideas about fairness (I guess you all know what my answers to the questions would be) and with emotions. It is a completely unworthy idea.

[Charles]

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.

Exactly. This knowledge played a huge role in Kant's reasoning about the deontological ethics. Not saying you have to agree with it, I do not do so to the full extent but to some. But it makes it even more absurd that those ideas that casued so much pain and suffering are still presented as the universal answer. But there is always hope :-)

[Charles]

Like I have asked - if an alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food would that be a moral wrong?

I would be interested in hearing your own take on that scenario. How would the Bible in your reading of it apply to an alien race.

[seer]

You still cannot claim that God “is” the foundation of your ethics since at least three possible options exist:

1) God does not exist
2) God exists in another way, shape or form than in your belief
3) God exists in the way, shape and form, you believe in

So the correct expression would be something along the lines that God “may” be the foundation. Or "if" (and that is a big IF) he exists in the way you believe, he is the foundation. Since you are yet to make us any the wiser as to why option 3 is correct, there is really no reason for us to prefer that option. The God of option 2 could get mad at us for holding a wrong view about him based on your idea of what God is.

As regards my view I have already given insight into it and answered the questions and obejctions you had. There is some of it you have not replied to. So for you to ask as if it is completely open is not serious.



I have made you aware that I am not a materialist. As an agnostic I do not rule out the possibility of a God beyond the realm of human understanding to exist. I simply hold to it because I find that it corresponds a lot better to reality and that in lines of reasoning it is the view that is most likely to be true. Even if you think I have failed to counter the idea that universal moral values can only exist if God exists, I think I have made it quite obvious that it is rather difficult to see how the sheer fact that God holds something makes it a moral truth. And what we mainly seem to discus is not really what God holds but what seer thinks or believes God holds.

God may disagree with seer
You always use the word God as if it is the answer to all big questions. Thus I cannot allow myself to question him. However, you are doing the same against a lot of other Gods whose existence cannot be proved either. How can you launch an attack against those Gods? How can you even claim, you understand God and is capable of presenting his view? Why should I believe in the moral character of your God and not the moral character of another God?

Babies in hell
Perhaps God is also tired of the fact that you seem to allow for the option of eternal punishment of babies in hell. Perhaps he is wondering why you hold one cannot object such an idea since one was given the ability to reason. Perhaps he will hold that calling my use of it an appeal to emotion completely misses the point that we are able to reflect. Calling the point to such an extreme suffering "cheap" is beyond me. You objected to Kant that according to him we could not lie to the Nazi asking if we were hiding jews in our basement. But pointing to something which is worse not only in numbers but in eternity is "cheap" you hold....

So, I will ask you to reflect on it:

- Why is it fair to punish or allow for the punishment of a baby forever in Hell for something over which it had no control?
- What is the rationality behind it?
- Where is the glory or goodness in it?
- What does it say about the so-called God, who allows it?
- If eternal punishment of babies in Hell is a part of your just universe in which morals exist, I guess perhaps we can review the idea about “goodness”. You claim it is not arbitrary. No one with any dignity would claim the concentration camps were fair or just. You seem to hold that in your just universe, it is fair that one single baby would have to suffer more than they all did in conditions in which the pain will never end. Why is that just?

I allow myself to oppose to the idea both with very basic ideas about fairness (I guess you all know what my answers to the questions would be) and with emotions. It is a completely unworthy idea.

Charles, I made it clear, I'm not attempting to prove a particular God, just that a god akin to classic theism, whether Judaism, Christianity or Islam would offer a source for universal moral truths, and you have offered nothing. Then to throw the debate off track you bring up babies in hell, Nazis, some subjective notion of dignity, etc... But this is not the discussion Charles and you know it, but you need to blow smoke. So let's get back on point. You said that we could not claim that God is good, or that God could not claim Himself good without an objective standard to compare - but you have no such objective moral law or rule, you can not demonstrate such. So yes, you are free to question God, but you are doing so from a morally relative position - based on the opinion of one who was raise in a particular culture at a particular time. You are limited in understanding (unlike God you can not know the beginning and the end) , your logic is flawed since you could never have all the facts, and your moral sense is effected by cultural mores, sin and a mutable moral character.

To sum up, you question the claim of God's goodness but you have offered no objective standard to bring that goodness into question. You call the reasoning circular, but you fail to offer a non-circular definition of goodness. So when in doubt you appeal to emotion; Nazis, babies in hell, arbitrary notions of fairness and dignity... Nice that...

[seer]

I would be interested in hearing your own take on that scenario. How would the Bible in your reading of it apply to an alien race.

It would be a moral wrong.

[seer]

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.

Stop being a hypocrite Tass, you believe all this is determined in the first place. We are determined by the laws of nature to believe in god or gods and determined to act the way we do. So again you are saying "not good" to what nature has wrought. Why do you hate nature so much?

[Charles]

Charles, I made it clear, I'm not attempting to prove a particular God, just that a god akin to classic theism, whether Judaism, Christianity or Islam would offer a source for universal moral truths, and you have offered nothing. Then to throw the debate off track you bring up babies in hell, Nazis, some subjective notion of dignity, etc... But this is not the discussion Charles and you know it, but you need to blow smoke. So let's get back on point. You said that we could not claim that God is good, or that God could not claim Himself good without an objective standard to compare - but you have no such objective moral law or rule, you can not demonstrate such. So yes, you are free to question God, but you are doing so from a morally relative position - based on the opinion of one who was raise in a particular culture at a particular time. You are limited in understanding (unlike God you can not know the beginning and the end) , your logic is flawed since you could never have all the facts, and your moral sense is effected by cultural mores, sin and a mutable moral character.

To sum up, you question the claim of God's goodness but you have offered no objective standard to bring that goodness into question. You call the reasoning circular, but you fail to offer a non-circular definition of goodness. So when in doubt you appeal to emotion; Nazis, babies in hell, arbitrary notions of fairness and dignity... Nice that...

Three points: I am not pointing to emotion only. That simply is nut true. Second: if you cant find objective values you are trapped like Leibniz claims. It is not only my problem but also yours. And way too easy to skip the part about all the contraintuitive stuff, babies in Hell and so on, in your view.

[JimL]

It would be a moral wrong.

Why, and how would you know?

[seer]

Three points: I am not pointing to emotion only. That simply is nut true. Second: if you cant find objective values you are trapped like Leibniz claims. It is not only my problem but also yours. And way too easy to skip the part about all the contraintuitive stuff, babies in Hell and so on, in your view.

Again Charles, that is the point. You have no objective moral law or rule by which to judge any act of God and we are left with opinion. Therefore any moral declaration, including yours, would be trapped in Leibniz's circle. So where do you go? Moral intuition? But why would that be the guide? Based on what? Knowledge? Logic? Personal/cultural ethical beliefs? You rail against perceived acts of God while standing on shifting moral ground.

[Charles]

Again Charles, that is the point. You have no objective moral law or rule by which to judge any act of God and we are left with opinion. Therefore any moral declaration, including yours, would be trapped in Leibniz's circle. So where do you go? Moral intuition? But why would that be the guide? Based on what? Knowledge? Logic? Personal/cultural ethical beliefs? You rail against perceived acts of God while standing on shifting moral ground.

You can claim that as much as you like, but I actually did point to some of the reasoning for what I think, and I answered your objections and questions. You may disagree which is completely fair but be honest about that.

Claiming that your circular statements formulated on shaky ground are godly makes no sence since you cannot prove your God exists or holds the view you claim he holds. If culture, moral intuition, emotion and so on plays a factor, you are not less likely to be influenced by it. But there is always hope :-)

[seer]

You can claim that as much as you like, but I actually did point to some of the reasoning for what I think, and I answered your objections and questions. You may disagree which is completely fair but be honest about that.

Charles, I must have missed these universal moral truths. You didn't do to well with the lying thing - you could not actually universalize it. There would have been other problems but we never got that far.

Claiming that your circular statements formulated on shaky ground are godly makes no sence since you cannot prove your God exists or holds the view you claim he holds. If culture, moral intuition, emotion and so on plays a factor, you are not less likely to be influenced by it. But there is always hope :-)

Charles you keep wanting me to prove God when that is not the discussion, and you know that. You are just retreating now. Never mind that we all believe things that we can not prove, like that other minds similar to mine exist, that what goes on in our head corresponds to reality, that my mother actually loved me, etc... And I'm not sure about your point about influence, I know my faith influences me greatly-it is a driving force in my life.

[JimL]

It would be a moral wrong.

Why? and how would you know?

[Tassman]

Stop being a hypocrite Tass, you believe all this is determined in the first place. We are determined by the laws of nature to believe in god or gods and determined to act the way we do. So again you are saying "not good" to what nature has wrought. Why do you hate nature so much?

Determinism is not fatalism as you well know and you reinforce your fundamental dishonesty by continually pretending it is. Now answer the question. How can religious people resolve conflicts about moral issues when members of competing religions and sects hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive?

[Tassman]

It would be a moral wrong.

Why? Is it "morally wrong" when lions kill and eat gazelles?

[Charles]

Charles, I must have missed these universal moral truths. You didn't do to well with the lying thing - you could not actually universalize it. There would have been other problems but we never got that far.



Charles you keep wanting me to prove God when that is not the discussion, and you know that. You are just retreating now. Never mind that we all believe things that we can not prove, like that other minds similar to mine exist, that what goes on in our head corresponds to reality, that my mother actually loved me, etc... And I'm not sure about your point about influence, I know my faith influences me greatly-it is a driving force in my life.

I like the “there would have been other problems” statement, since I actually answered your questions and objections and there are still points in my answers that you have not answered. Anyway, I have said many times that it is ok to disagree, calling me a liar, however, is just way too low. In that regard it would have served you well to follow this universal moral truth: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

You have had the attitude of knowing the answers to these questions and it is absolutely fair to point out, that you are dependent on God to exists in order for any of it to be true. If you cannot prove him here or somewhere else what you have got is a guess, a belief, a something that cannot be proven. There is no way you can claim it is universal, since you don’t know if it even exists. It’s a guess, and perhaps even God disagrees.

And your points about all other kinds of areas in which you claim we do not have knowledge does not seem to strengthen your case. It rather seems to make even less likely that you are right.

My point about influence is as simple as this: You claim any line of ethical thinking is influenced by different factors. Since you cannot prove your religion right I hold it absolutely fair to say that the views, norms and standards found in your religion are equally as likely to be influenced by these factors.