Morality Without Justice

[seer]

If moral behavior is entirely or even partially attributable to instinct, then the line "1) Moral behavior is rational" is false.

So moral behavior is not rational in your world. Thanks for making my point.

That ignores the international community or coups and uprisings.

And there are times when a Stalin and Mao win. Again, no justice.

Certain acts result in certain results. Acts which result in negative consequences we call "bad" and "immoral" and acts which result in positive consequences we call "good" and "moral". There is no more decision or judgment being made than when you throw a ball and it falls to the ground.

That makes no sense. A Mao dies old and happy in bed. Where are his consequences? And how did these moral consequences get programmed into the universe? Rock and dust don't care about moral issues.

Is this a genuine request or are you trying to show that there is a tautology?

No you said:We can only verify true things to others through science.

Is that a true statement? And can you verify that to me through science? If you can't then you believe true things that can not be verified by science - which makes your claim false.

[Tassman]

So moral behavior is not rational in your world. Thanks for making my point.

And there are times when a Stalin and Mao win. Again, no justice.

That makes no sense. A Mao dies old and happy in bed. Where are his consequences? And how did these moral consequences get programmed into the universe? Rock and dust don't care about moral issues.

No you said:We can only verify true things to others through science.

Is that a true statement? And can you verify that to me through science? If you can't then you believe true things that can not be verified by science - which makes your claim false.

[The Pixie]

First Like I said, salvation is a free gift, opened to all men. That is fair and just.

I thought we were talking about punishment and rewards for deeds done. You seem to have moved the goalposts seer. Salvation is a red herring.

Second, no matter which side of the ledger you are on (saved or lost) there are degrees of rewards and punishments corresponding perfectly to our deeds.

But the primary consideration is your religion.

Supposedly, when an individual stands before God, the first issue is whether the guy was a Christian or not. Once God has determined heaven or hell on that basis, then he gets down to the fine detail of whether he was a serial killer or charity worker. Correct me if I am wrong, here seer. That is the Christian position, right?

And you are advocating this as a justice system, right? A system where people are judged primarily (but not solely) on their religion, not their deeds.

Inherently unjust according to whom?

According to pretty much every court on Earth.

Certainly in Europe and North America we would be horrified by a judge who judges whether an individual is guilty based on their religious beliefs.

And yet you are holding this up as a perfect justice:

Whether you consider this just is immaterial, your sense of morality could no more rise above God's than a stream could rise above its source.

Just because you assert God's idea of justice is better than mine does not make it so.

The Christian concept of God's justice is based on the assumption that God is perfect and informed by a collection of disparate ideas through the Bible. The result is that Christians are obliged to assert that judging people on the basis of their religion is a perfect system, despite the obvious fact that no one would consider that justice if a human judge did it.

So again, I live in a just world - you live in a universe where justice is not even potentially possible.

You live in a world where people are judged on their religion. Where Hitler is doomed to hell not for the murder of millions of Jews (and plenty of other too), but because he was not Christian; where good people like Gandhi are consigned to hell, despite living a famously non-violent life, because of his religion.

Remember your OP:

(2) Morality behavior is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.

You are relating morality behavior to justice in the OP, and yet the reality is that God's justice is founded first on religious belief and not moral behavior. Your argument is fundamentally flawed because your idea of perfect justice is not based on moral behavior.

[The Pixie]

No, I'm claiming that without justice morality is irrational. If you went to a far country where 50% of the population were allowed to rob, steal and rape with no legal consequences would you consider that system just or rational?

But that is what God's justice is like. Those 50% are the Christians. They truly repent of their raping and murdering, and so they go to heaven. The other 50%, they are not Christian, so go to hell. Whether they raped and murdered or not.

And no, I do not consider that system just or rational.

Now come back to this country. We punish people who rape and murder. People are judged on whether they committed the rape or the murder, and their religious views are not at all relevant. It is not perfect because the courts can never be sure of what actually happens, but it does aspire to that ideal. Do you consider that system just or rational?

[seer]

All this just proves my point Tass. If this is true then justice does not exist or only partially exists. And our moral system is ultimately unjust and irrational.

[seer]

I thought we were talking about punishment and rewards for deeds done. You seem to have moved the goalposts seer. Salvation is a red herring.

Actually you brought up the salvation thing: your ultimate fate is predicated first and foremost on your religious belief. So I moved nothing. You did.

Supposedly, when an individual stands before God, the first issue is whether the guy was a Christian or not. Once God has determined heaven or hell on that basis, then he gets down to the fine detail of whether he was a serial killer or charity worker. Correct me if I am wrong, here seer. That is the Christian position, right?

And you are advocating this as a justice system, right? A system where people are judged primarily (but not solely) on their religion, not their deeds.

Yes, I'm advocating a system where a man repents of his evil deeds and asks for forgiveness. The charity worker and the serial killer have both sinned against God. And salvation is offered to both.

According to pretty much every court on Earth.

Certainly in Europe and North America we would be horrified by a judge who judges whether an individual is guilty based on their religious beliefs.

And yet you are holding this up as a perfect justice:

Just because you assert God's idea of justice is better than mine does not make it so.

Because God offers salvation freely, it is just and fair. And yes a man is judged by who He loves. If he loves God, or return God's love, He is saved. If he rejects said love he is lost. Love is the most important consideration.

You live in a world where people are judged on their religion. Where Hitler is doomed to hell not for the murder of millions of Jews (and plenty of other too), but because he was not Christian; where good people like Gandhi are consigned to hell, despite living a famously non-violent life, because of his religion.

Gandhi was a sinner just like the rest of us. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...60371482469358

Remember your OP:

(2) Morality behavior is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.

You are relating morality behavior to justice in the OP, and yet the reality is that God's justice is founded first on religious belief and not moral behavior. Your argument is fundamentally flawed because your idea of perfect justice is not based on moral behavior.

No that is not exactly right. Since salvation is a free gift that is offered to all men - the offer is fair and just. And since there will be degrees of rewards and punishments there too justice will be done. There is no justice in your universe, not even potentially, which makes your moral system completely irrational. I mean you can criticize my view, but you have nothing.

[seer]

But that is what God's justice is like. Those 50% are the Christians. They truly repent of their raping and murdering, and so they go to heaven. The other 50%, they are not Christian, so go to hell. Whether they raped and murdered or not.

But no man is innocent, all have sinned against God. So your 50% of non-Christians are guilty too.

[The Pixie]

Actually you brought up the salvation thing: your ultimate fate is predicated first and foremost on your religious belief. So I moved nothing. You did.

My point was that that ultimate fate was irrelevant to justice. We are not talking about salvation, and so who gets salvation is irrelevant to your argument.

Yes, I'm advocating a system where a man repents of his evil deeds and asks for forgiveness. The charity worker and the serial killer have both sinned against God. And salvation is offered to both.

And so the ultimate judgement is based on religious belief, and not on good or bad deeds.

Remember, you OP argument is based on the need for a system of justice, and yet you are proudly proclaiming that both the charity worker and the serial killer have both sinned.

Think this through. Here is your argument:

(1) Moral behavior is rational.
(2) Morality behavior is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

Why is it rational to do a lot of charity work rather than rape and murder, if the end result is the same?

In the system you advocate, there is no rational reason to behave morally, because behaving morally or immorally are unrelated to your ultimate fate. As you said: "Morality behavior is only rational if justice will be done" but that assumes moral behavior is rewarded and immoral behaviour is punished.

Of course, you can define moral behaviour as worshiping God, and immoral behaviour as not worshiping God. But then you argument is:

(1) Worshiping God is rational.
(2) Worshiping God is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

If you want to argue that, you need to prove the first premise, by showing God exists. And then it all gets a bit circular.

Otherwise, you are stuck with this:

(1) Doing good deeds and avoiding bad deeds is rational.
(2) Doing good deeds and avoiding bad deeds is only rational if doing good deeds is rewarded and doing bad deeds is punished.
(3) Rewarding those who worship him and punishing those who do not will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

Which is clearly flawed, as the conclusion does not follow, once your slippery wordage is removed.

[seer]

My point was that that ultimate fate was irrelevant to justice. We are not talking about salvation, and so who gets salvation is irrelevant to your argument.

And so the ultimate judgement is based on religious belief, and not on good or bad deeds.

No, since degrees of rewards and punishment are based on works. There is a corresponding relationship to deeds. And since salvation, again, is offered to all that too is also just and fair. So whether you think this is a just system is immaterial, it is a system that prescribes various degrees of rewards and punishments. And rational.

Why is it rational to do a lot of charity work rather than rape and murder, if the end result is the same?

But the result is decidedly not the same. A rapist may repent and be saved in the end, but his rewards would not come close to those of a Mother Teresa. So there is justice, something that can not happen in your universe which makes your system irrational.

[The Pixie]

No, since degrees of rewards and punishment are based on works. There is a corresponding relationship to deeds. And since salvation, again, is offered to all that too is also just and fair. So whether you think this is a just system is immaterial, it is a system that prescribes various degrees of rewards and punishments. And rational.

But what was your argument? The only reason to do right is because you expect a reward and to not do wrong was to avoid punishment.

However, the way to get a reward is (suppoisedly) to be a Christian. it is not about doing right or wrong. There is a disconect between gooding right and wrong, and getting a reward or punishment.

What you are arguing is this:

(1) Doing good deeds and avoiding bad deeds is rational.
(2) Doing good deeds and avoiding bad deeds is only rational if doing good deeds is rewarded and doing bad deeds is punished.
(3) Rewarding those who worship him and punishing those who do not will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

You are using a slippery concept of justice that means the bad get punished for points (1) and (2), whilst trying to downplay the fact that actually the good get punished too.

Why is it rational to do good, if you expect to get punished for it away?

But the result is decidedly not the same. A rapist may repent and be saved in the end, but his rewards would not come close to those of a Mother Teresa. So there is justice, something that can not happen in your universe which makes your system irrational.

The repentent rapist gets the reward, and the Hindu charity worker goes to hell.

So in what way is it ration to do charity work, rather than murder?

[seer]

But what was your argument? The only reason to do right is because you expect a reward and to not do wrong was to avoid punishment.

Who said the only reason to do right was to avoid punishment?

However, the way to get a reward is (suppoisedly) to be a Christian. it is not about doing right or wrong. There is a disconect between gooding right and wrong, and getting a reward or punishment.

Again, this is not about motivation. Christians will generally do right out of love for God and love for their fellow man. This is about whether we live in a just or unjust universe.

Why is it rational to do good, if you expect to get punished for it away?

Again, no man is good, not in the Biblical sense. But the lost man that did not do horrendous things will not be punished to the degree as someone who did. The less you sin, the less punishment you will endure. Perfectly just.

The repentent rapist gets the reward, and the Hindu charity worker goes to hell.

Right and God is just in condemning the unrepentant sinner and just in forgiving the repentant sinner through the merits of Christ.

So in what way is it ration to do charity work, rather than murder?

To avoid a more severe judgement. In any case justice reigns. Unlike in your unjust and morally irrational universe.

[Jichard]

The argument goes like this:




In a godless universe, many, if not most, crimes go unpunished. A greedy Hedge fund manager and a Mother Teresa have the same fate - death and dust, so why be a Mother Teresa? No non-theistic moral system can offer universal justice, even potentially, therefore no non-theistic system can be rational.

The argument is silly, for reasons that have been explained to you over and over and over and...

First, if by "rational" you mean something like "in one's long-term self-interest", than the argument misses the point. Morality isn't just about one's self-interest; only ethical egoists think otherwise. Nor does rationality just boil down to maximizing one's self-interest. Furthermore, even on this definition, God isn't needed for moral behavior to be rational. As philosopher have noted since at least Hume and Aristotle, it can often be in one's self-interest to behave morally. For example: acting morally can hep one avoid punishment by other humans, it can instill habits of thinking and behavior that will help you form fruitful relationships with other's, etc.

Second, the argument hinges on a silly appeal to consequence that misses the point of morality. As noted above, morality isn't just about one's self-interest. It matters if one helps other people, even if one is not rewarded for it or punished for doing it. Only selfish, egotistical people (*cough* seer *cough*) think otherwise. And even if everyone is not ultimately rewarded or punished, it still matters how one's treat others. For example, if I help alleviate the suffering of a cancer victim for one day, that still matters, even if that cancer still ends up dying and I don't get rewarded for what I did. There doesn't need to be some cosmic justice in order for me to see the value in helping others. Of course, I understand if you think otherwise, seer; selfish people often don't see the value in helping others, unless there's a reward or punishment involved. Anyway, moral truth is not about it has all the wonderful, positive consequences that seer wants, nor is the rationality of a moral claim determine by whether it has all the wonderful, positive consequences that seer wants. To say otherwise is, again, a fallacious appeal to consequence. Furthermore, helping people is still of sig

[Tassman]

All this just proves my point Tass. If this is true then justice does not exist or only partially exists. And our moral system is ultimately unjust and irrational.

[The Pixie]

Who said the only reason to do right was to avoid punishment?

It is implicit in the argument in your OP.

"(2) Morality behavior is only rational if justice will be done."

If you are now saying moral behaviour is rational for other reasons, then your argument falls apart and my work here is done.

So please clarify: Are you saying the only reason to do right was to avoid punishment?

Again, this is not about motivation. Christians will generally do right out of love for God and love for their fellow man. This is about whether we live in a just or unjust universe.

Again, that is not what you implied in the OP. Please make up your mind!

Why is it rational to do good, if you expect to get punished for it away?

Again, no man is good, not in the Biblical sense.

That is the problem, though.

In Christianity, everyone is guilty. Remember the argument in the OP?

(1) Moral behavior is rational.
(2) Morality behavior is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

Why behave morally if you will get punished anyway? Christianity is not about justice, it is about a petty, egotistical God getting his own back on anyone who dares to not worship him. You might be able to convince yourself that that is justice, but to non-Christians it is tyranny.

But the lost man that did not do horrendous things will not be punished to the degree as someone who did. The less you sin, the less punishment you will endure. Perfectly just.

Do you advocate a similar "justice" for human courts? Everyone is guilty, the only question is how severe the punishment?

Let us think about your foreign country analogy again. In this country there are any number of odd laws, such as not eating ice cream or wearing garments of certain colours, but hey are old, and no one is too sure if they apply any more. Of course, there are laws about murder and theft, but they are just as old, and people assume they still apply.

In this country, when you get to forty, you go before the king, who judges you. There is no other court in the land, no other system of punishment; everyone is judged at forty, no one is judged before that. Those who are good, they get a retirement in luxury, but those who are bad are tortured for the rest of their lives.

Of course, the twist is that everyone is judged as bad. All the king has to do is decide just how bad you have been, and so how much torture you deserve.

A good moral system, would you say? Hmm, perhaps we should add that the king's flunkies get to go to the luxury returement, even though they are judged as bad, as long as they grovel to him. No matter what they have been up to. Is that better now?

Now the real question is: Do you think the citizens of such a country will tend to be more law abiding than in our country or less?

Right and God is just in condemning the unrepentant sinner and just in forgiving the repentant sinner through the merits of Christ.

God's so-called justice is about his ego, and not about right and wrong. This is fundamental to the reward/punishment system.

[The Pixie]

The argument goes like this:

(1) Moral behavior is rational.
(2) Morality behavior is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

(2) is wrong, because (among other things) it would also be rational if you only believe justice would be done. It should be this:

(1) Moral behavior is rational.
(2) Morality behavior is only rational if it is believed that justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) People believe that God exists.