Atheism And Moral Progress

[Jim B.]

What would that look like? Moral truths, as far as I know, only exist in minds. The mind of God could be the source of universal moral truths, since He is universal. I don't know what else could be.

You might be right. I don't know. Think about truth-telling, though. There's an inherent logic to it. Even a liar depends on the assumption that most people tell the truth. Rational exchange of ideas wouldn;t be possible without this foundational assumption. So the actual moral truth : "One ought to tell the truth, all else being equal" can exist only in a mind, but the underlying rationale lies deeper, in the nature of discourse. But this may apply only to certain kinds of moral truths and not others.

[seer]

You might be right. I don't know. Think about truth-telling, though. There's an inherent logic to it. Even a liar depends on the assumption that most people tell the truth. Rational exchange of ideas wouldn;t be possible without this foundational assumption. So the actual moral truth : "One ought to tell the truth, all else being equal" can exist only in a mind, but the underlying rationale lies deeper, in the nature of discourse. But this may apply only to certain kinds of moral truths and not others.

Yes it is deeper, it depends on one's ethical goals (which is also mind dependent). If lying or deceit helped your clan or tribe to gain advantage over a competing clan or tribe then it may be quite rational to use deceit in such a situation. We used such tactics to great effect during WW2.

[JonathanL]

Morality is the idea that there are things that rational beings ought to do. Things that are implicit in the nature of the rational will. You don't need an authority figure to make something right or wrong, imo. It's inherent in the nature of the act itself.

I don't think that's true at all. Right and wrong implies that there's an obligation to act in accordance with what is "right", and to refrain from acts that are "wrong", but where does this obligation come from? It's certainly not from "the nature of the act itself". I don't see how it's possible to derive any moral obligations by simply analysing what is "inherent in the nature of the act itself".

If it depends on an authority, what is the basis on which the authority sets his standard? Do we revert to Divine Command Theory? You might say God IS the standard, that His character is the standard, but the question remains: How does God add to the goodness of good acts? I don't claim to know the answer. It's something i've wrestled with for a while.

Good would simply be defined as that which is in accordance with God's will (and His will would be dependent on His nature). There would be no "intermediate explanation" that explains how "God add to the goodness of good acts", but rather, the basic definition of what good is would be the aforementioned definition. If there were a need to explain why goodness is dependent on God's nature then that explanation would in itself be a standard outside of God by which goodness was judged, and so goodness wouldn't be derived solely from the nature of God.

[JimL]

That makes no sense at all. If there were a universal moral standard without a God, it would be a universal moral standard even if it weren't universally recognized. Just as there can be truths about the physical world that people can be wrong about.

What would you suggest a universal moral standard without a god would be based on? Inother words, what would make a thing moral or immoral without a god?

[Tassman]

That makes no sense at all. If there were a universal moral standard without a God, it would be a universal moral standard even if it weren't universally recognized. Just as there can be truths about the physical world that people can be wrong about.

Truths about the physical world can be tested and verified, whereas the notion of “a universal moral standard” can be no more than a philosophical argument, which cannot be verified.

[Tassman]

What would you suggest a universal moral standard without a god would be based on? Inother words, what would make a thing moral or immoral without a god?

I think he’s heading in the direction of the philosophical argument from ‘Natural Law’, whereby universal moral truths are inherent by virtue of human nature, traditionally endowed by God, and accessible by human reason.

[Tassman]

Tass, it would not matter, the god of Islam certainly could be the source of universal moral truths even if I or you don't believe in Him. Same with the Christian God. Our personal acceptance or not tells us nothing.

If ‘universal moral truths’ are not recognized universally as such, then they cannot be regarded as universal moral truths.

[seer]

If ‘universal moral truths’ are not recognized universally as such, then they cannot be regarded as universal moral truths.

That makes no sense, the laws of logic would be universal whether we understood or recognized them or not.

[shunyadragon]

You might be right. I don't know. Think about truth-telling, though. There's an inherent logic to it. Even a liar depends on the assumption that most people tell the truth. Rational exchange of ideas wouldn't be possible without this foundational assumption. So the actual moral truth : "One ought to tell the truth, all else being equal" can exist only in a mind, but the underlying rationale lies deeper, in the nature of discourse. But this may apply only to certain kinds of moral truths and not others.

First, I do not believe 'most people' necessarily tell the truth. Personal views of 'truth' are too subjective. Second, the concept of 'moral truth' are an oxymoron.

[shunyadragon]

Can't there be a universal moral standard without God though?

A Universal Moral Standard is another 'oxymoron' from the perspective of what is known of history of the nature of natural morality and ethics. Naturally morals and ethics are evolved systems of behavior centering around the survival of the human species. There are common foundations of the natural basis for 'morals and ethics' throughout the known history of humanity since the first human is known to be human and migrated out of Africa more than ~300,000 years ago.

No known observed 'universal standard of morals' is known to exist. The natural universal basis of everything is ultimately the Laws of Nature.

[Jim B.]

Yes it is deeper, it depends on one's ethical goals (which is also mind dependent). If lying or deceit helped your clan or tribe to gain advantage over a competing clan or tribe then it may be quite rational to use deceit in such a situation. We used such tactics to great effect during WW2.

That sounds like some version of utilitarianism. I'm arguing for moral objectivism, not to be confused with moral absolutism. I think that there are objective moral principles, like truth-telling that even God has to acknowledge. God does not make or decree that lying is wrong. I don't believe in Divine Command Theory.

[JimL]

That sounds like some version of utilitarianism. I'm arguing for moral objectivism, not to be confused with moral absolutism. I think that there are objective moral principles, like truth-telling that even God has to acknowledge. God does not make or decree that lying is wrong. I don't believe in Divine Command Theory.

Moral objectivism based on what, nothing?

[seer]

That sounds like some version of utilitarianism. I'm arguing for moral objectivism, not to be confused with moral absolutism. I think that there are objective moral principles, like truth-telling that even God has to acknowledge. God does not make or decree that lying is wrong. I don't believe in Divine Command Theory.

Well that is where we disagree, I do hold to DCT, lying is wrong because God decrees that it is, and God decrees it because He is by nature truthful. I don't see how lying would be objectively wrong in your theory, especially if lying benefited the liar.

[Jim B.]

I don't think that's true at all. Right and wrong implies that there's an obligation to act in accordance with what is "right", and to refrain from acts that are "wrong", but where does this obligation come from? It's certainly not from "the nature of the act itself". I don't see how it's possible to derive any moral obligations by simply analysing what is "inherent in the nature of the act itself".




Good would simply be defined as that which is in accordance with God's will (and His will would be dependent on His nature). There would be no "intermediate explanation" that explains how "God add to the goodness of good acts", but rather, the basic definition of what good is would be the aforementioned definition. If there were a need to explain why goodness is dependent on God's nature then that explanation would in itself be a standard outside of God by which goodness was judged, and so goodness wouldn't be derived solely from the nature of God.

Love and justice are parts of God's nature because they are good. That makes more sense than that they are good because they are part of His nature. The fact that they are good seems logically, even if not temporally, prior. How does love's being part of God's nature bestow moral goodness upon love exactly? I know that the Bible says that "God is love," but surely this is meant as a metaphor, as the "is" of predication rather than the "is" of "identity. It seems to mean something more like "God is loving," or "God's nature is to love," etc. So God does not ontologically OWN love any more than He owns justice or fairness. He instantiates and embodies them, but He does not create their goodness by incorporating them into his nature.

[Jim B.]

What would you suggest a universal moral standard without a god would be based on? Inother words, what would make a thing moral or immoral without a god?

Moral intuition. the moral law is written on the heart. Nearly all people know, except for sociopaths, etc. Even people who do wrong know they're doing wrong when they do it.