Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

    Or jumping off of other discussions, where do we ground moral questions. I think three of the obvious choices we have are:

    1. The individual.

    2. The society (either by the majority or by a politically powerful elite).

    3. In a Creator, something like the Christian God, with an immutable, good, moral character.


    I don't think most would agree with option one, if you take it to its logical end we would have moral chaos. Option two is better, but logically it would lead to relativism, cultural mores could be quite different. It may be perfectly acceptable to summarily execute political dissents is some societies and not others. And neither choice (to execute or not execute) would be more valid or correct than the other. Or option three. Where there exists a transcendent moral law, grounded in something eternal, good and immutable. Not subject to the changing mores and whims of men or culture. Which would suggest that our best moral ideals are not merely grounded in ethically shifting cultures or are an accident of biology. And don't we all agree that there really are things that are wrong? Wrong no matter what a culture may sanction? And even if we don't always agree what these specific moral wrongs are, we can agree, I think, that such a category exists.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Or jumping off of other discussions, where do we ground moral questions. I think three of the obvious choices we have are:

    1. The individual.

    2. The society (either by the majority or by a politically powerful elite).

    3. In a Creator, something like the Christian God, with an immutable, good, moral character.


    I don't think most would agree with option one, if you take it to its logical end we would have moral chaos. Option two is better, but logically it would lead to relativism, cultural mores could be quite different. It may be perfectly acceptable to summarily execute political dissents is some societies and not others. And neither choice (to execute or not execute) would be more valid or correct than the other. Or option three. Where there exists a transcendent moral law, grounded in something eternal, good and immutable. Not subject to the changing mores and whims of men or culture. Which would suggest that our best moral ideals are not merely grounded in ethically shifting cultures or are an accident of biology. And don't we all agree that there really are things that are wrong? Wrong no matter what a culture may sanction? And even if we don't always agree what these specific moral wrongs are, we can agree, I think, that such a category exists.
    None are perfect since we are all primates with higher cognition. We still have the apparatus of our early ancestors, meaning that we are territorial, selfish, and need outlets for our primal drives (predation, sex). 2 seems the most workable. 1 and 3 are bound to create problems. 3 in particular, since most religious will have differing opinions based on their interpretation of their sacred text. Liberal Muslims will argue with the more extreme wings about Sharia Law. Liberal Christians will argue with the Rushdoony-ists and Westburo Baptist types about what's the best moral course.

    Basically, no matter how you slice it, the human civic enterprise could never have operated perfectly given our equipment. That gets to the heart of the Bible's main flaw: it pretends that humans could have behaved perfectly together and created a utopic society that persisted forever. We all know that was never possible.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Or jumping off of other discussions, where do we ground moral questions.
      Your statements makes no sense, until you clarify what you mean by "ground".

      Suppose you mean some metaphysical notion of grounding. For example, take the statement: that animal is a dog. The property referred to by "is a dog" is grounded in the particular organism referred to by "that animal". That's how metaphysical grounding works. No God required.

      Now, suppose you mean some epistemic notion of grounding. For example, take the statement: the grounds for my belief that "evolution happens" is the fossil record. The term "grounds" here, simply means one's evidence or justification for the claim. Again, no God required.

      Anyway, on either reading of "ground", your statement "where do we ground moral questions" makes no sense, unless you mean to say that moral questions are metaphysically grounded in people's vocalizations of them, or writing of them, or thinking of them, or...

      I think three of the obvious choices we have are:

      1. The individual.

      2. The society (either by the majority or by a politically powerful elite).

      3. In a Creator, something like the Christian God, with an immutable, good, moral character.
      Nope.

      First, you've given no reason for thinking that God is good, beyond defining God as good.

      Second, if you try to claim that God is good in virtue of other properties God has (such as properties with respect to character traits), then those properties ground moral goodness, not God.

      Third, your trichotomy is a false one, since those are not the only three options. For example, take the statement that action was morally wrong. The term "is morally wrong" refers to a property, where that property is metaphysically grounded in the action referred to by "that action". Yet the action is not an individual, society, or God.

      I don't think most would agree with option one, if you take it to its logical end we would have moral chaos. Option two is better, but logically it would lead to relativism, cultural mores could be quite different. It may be perfectly acceptable to summarily execute political dissents is some societies and not others. And neither choice (to execute or not execute) would be more valid or correct than the other.
      Your statements here are confused, as far as I can tell. If your point is that different people have different moral beliefs, then sure. But so what? Different people have different scientific beliefs, as well. How's that relevant?

      If your point is that people moral beliefs in virtue of people saying so, then your claim is false

      Or option three. Where there exists a transcendent moral law, grounded in something eternal, good and immutable. Not subject to the changing mores and whims of men or culture.
      None of that has to do with objective truth. For example, it's objectively true that "dogs exist", even though that statement was once false, and even though dogs are neither eternal nor immutable. The lesson here is that objectively true statements do not require eternal immutable things in order to be true. Same lesson for objectively true moral statements. A moral statement need not be true in virtue of something immutable or eternal, nor need it be uttered by someone immutable or eternal in order to be objectively true.

      Which would suggest that our best moral ideals are not merely grounded in ethically shifting cultures or are an accident of biology.
      You need to be clear what you mean by "moral ideals". If you mean people's moral beliefs, then those moral beliefs are metaphysically grounded in people's minds and epistemically grounded in whatever facts there are in virtue of which their moral beliefs are true (or whatever facts serve as evidence for their belief). No need for God there at all.

      And don't we all agree that there really are things that are wrong? Wrong no matter what a culture may sanction?
      Of course I agree that there are things that are morally wrong, regardless of what anyone says, including God. And that's because I'm not a moral subjectivist, while you are.

      And even if we don't always agree what these specific moral wrongs are, we can agree, I think, that such a category exists.
      Are there actions that are morally wrong, regardless of what God says and regardless of whether God exists?
      Last edited by Jichard; 08-27-2015, 08:41 PM.
      "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Or jumping off of other discussions, where do we ground moral questions. I think three of the obvious choices we have are:

        1. The individual.

        2. The society (either by the majority or by a politically powerful elite).

        3. In a Creator, something like the Christian God, with an immutable, good, moral character.
        In your OP, you seem to think that the only three options are individual moral subjectivism (your option 1), cultural relativism (your option 2), or divine command theory (your option 3). All three of those are forms of moral subjectivism. So, once again, you seem to be unable to fairly deal with anything that isn't moral subjectivism. Your moral subjectivism is showing, again.

        Feel free to explore other options, seer, beyond moral subjectivism. And I mean honestly explore them, as expose to what you did on the other thread.
        "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Or jumping off of other discussions, where do we ground moral questions. I think three of the obvious choices we have are:

          1. The individual.

          2. The society (either by the majority or by a politically powerful elite).

          3. In a Creator, something like the Christian God, with an immutable, good, moral character.


          I don't think most would agree with option one, if you take it to its logical end we would have moral chaos. Option two is better, but logically it would lead to relativism, cultural mores could be quite different. It may be perfectly acceptable to summarily execute political dissents is some societies and not others. And neither choice (to execute or not execute) would be more valid or correct than the other. Or option three. Where there exists a transcendent moral law, grounded in something eternal, good and immutable. Not subject to the changing mores and whims of men or culture. Which would suggest that our best moral ideals are not merely grounded in ethically shifting cultures or are an accident of biology. And don't we all agree that there really are things that are wrong? Wrong no matter what a culture may sanction? And even if we don't always agree what these specific moral wrongs are, we can agree, I think, that such a category exists.
          Not really the obvious choices. In reality our knowledge of human morality and ethics is grounded in evolution of the species, which resulted in morals and ethics as necessary for the survival of the human species. The result, of course, is that all the diverse societies of humanity throughout history have developed similar codes of morals and ethics regardless of their religious beliefs. It is clearly found that all the primates and other mammals have systems of morals and ethics. It is also grounded in natural law.

          The difference between different religious views, some say Natural Law is the only force in existence that ultimately determines our human nature and morals and ethics, ie atheists and other naturalists. Some like the Baha'is believe that Natural Law is an attribute of God, and morals and ethics evolved as science describes it with a Divine purpose and intent.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-27-2015, 10:51 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Or jumping off of other discussions, where do we ground moral questions. I think three of the obvious choices we have are:

            1. The individual.

            2. The society (either by the majority or by a politically powerful elite).

            3. In a Creator, something like the Christian God, with an immutable, good, moral character.


            I don't think most would agree with option one, if you take it to its logical end we would have moral chaos. Option two is better, but logically it would lead to relativism, cultural mores could be quite different. It may be perfectly acceptable to summarily execute political dissents is some societies and not others. And neither choice (to execute or not execute) would be more valid or correct than the other. Or option three. Where there exists a transcendent moral law, grounded in something eternal, good and immutable. Not subject to the changing mores and whims of men or culture. Which would suggest that our best moral ideals are not merely grounded in ethically shifting cultures or are an accident of biology. And don't we all agree that there really are things that are wrong? Wrong no matter what a culture may sanction? And even if we don't always agree what these specific moral wrongs are, we can agree, I think, that such a category exists.
            Neither, morals are grounded, if thats what you want to call it, in nature. Morals are relative to the interests of the living. If there were no life, there would be no such thing as morality, no such thing as right or wrong. So why would they be grounded anywhere?. The only reason you can't see this, is because of your subjective agenda of ultimate justice. But justice is not the point of morality, justice has only to do with the transgressers of moral laws. Morals themselves, their purpose, is to be the foundation of a great society, and by great I mean what you would call heaven or paradise. And it isn't about whether or not you or any other individual should agree and or abide with said morals, the point is that if everyone did abide by them, would their adherence to the right set moral laws bring about that world. If it would, then that is what makes them right, not that they are grounded in some external divinity.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Neither, morals are grounded, if thats what you want to call it, in nature. Morals are relative to the interests of the living. If there were no life, there would be no such thing as morality, no such thing as right or wrong. So why would they be grounded anywhere?. The only reason you can't see this, is because of your subjective agenda of ultimate justice. But justice is not the point of morality, justice has only to do with the transgressers of moral laws. Morals themselves, their purpose, is to be the foundation of a great society, and by great I mean what you would call heaven or paradise. And it isn't about whether or not you or any other individual should agree and or abide with said morals, the point is that if everyone did abide by them, would their adherence to the right set moral laws bring about that world. If it would, then that is what makes them right, not that they are grounded in some external divinity.
              Jim, then you would choose option two and relativism.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                Of course I agree that there are things that are morally wrong, regardless of what anyone says, including God. And that's because I'm not a moral subjectivist, while you are.
                Yes I know that is is your opinion. Can you finally offer a behavior that is objectively wrong and why?
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Jim, then you would choose option two and relativism.
                  Morals and ethics are morals and ethics by definition, and they are social and cultural standards of behavior. How would they different whether God exists or not. God reveals spiritual Laws no morals and ethics.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Morals and ethics are morals and ethics by definition, and they are social and cultural standards of behavior. How would they different whether God exists or not. God reveals spiritual Laws no morals and ethics.
                    Please go away...
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Or jumping off of other discussions, where do we ground moral questions. ...
                      Sorry, I do not understand this question. What does "ground" actually mean here?

                      Suppose we are trying to decide whether same-sex marriages are moral, in what way do we "ground" that question? What do we actually do that is - in your opinion - grounding it?

                      As far as I am aware there is no high authority who has ever been approached on the question. Sure, theists can cite their sacred books or appeal to divine revelation, but ultimately these come down to personal opinion just as they do for anyone else (as is clear from the fact that theists do not universally agree on matters of morality).
                      My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                        Sorry, I do not understand this question. What does "ground" actually mean here?

                        Suppose we are trying to decide whether same-sex marriages are moral, in what way do we "ground" that question? What do we actually do that is - in your opinion - grounding it?

                        As far as I am aware there is no high authority who has ever been approached on the question. Sure, theists can cite their sacred books or appeal to divine revelation, but ultimately these come down to personal opinion just as they do for anyone else (as is clear from the fact that theists do not universally agree on matters of morality).
                        Ground means simple where do moral questions stop as I explained in the OP. You vote for relativism, and I'm not dealing with specific moral questions but the fact that most men really do believe that some things are always wrong, despite cultural differences. That there is such a category.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Please go away...
                          No, Failure to respond represents the problems with your arguments based on conjecture, and assertions based on your agenda.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Seer, how do you define the word moral?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              No, Failure to respond represents the problems with your arguments based on conjecture, and assertions based on your agenda.
                              Shuny, I said please - now please leave my thread. Thank you...
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              39 responses
                              143 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              80 responses
                              425 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X