On why people think actions are morally right or morally wrong

[Jichard]

Some theists appeal to what most people believe on moral matters, in order to claim that most people believe things are wrong regardless of what a culture might sanction. For instance:

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.

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.

Well, if that's the game those theists want to play... then it's fair game for one to point out that there are people who think actions are morally right, morally wrong, etc. in virtue of the harm those actions cause or prevent, regardless of what God sanctions, punishes people for, etc. For instance:

Nucci, Larry, and Elliott Turiel. "God's Word, Religious Rules, and Their Relation to Christian and Jewish Children's Concepts of Morality." Child Development 64.5 (1993): 1475-91.

"It was expected that subjects from each denomination would judge nonmoral religious rules, but not moral rules, as contingent on the authority of God. Two types of questions were posed to assess this dimension. The first posed a variant of the rule contingency criterion employed in studies regarding secular moral and conventional issues. Subjects were asked whether the right or wrong of a given action was contingent on the presence or absence of a specific command from God regulating the behavior. The second type of question was derived from the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, which turned on what is known as the "open question." Put simply, the open question asks the following: "God commands X, but is X right?"the Amish-Mennonite and Dutch Reform Calvinist children evaluated moral issues in terms of justice and welfare considerations, rather than precepts of the Bible or positions taken by religious authorities [emphasis added]. As did the Catholics, the Amish-Mennonite children generalized moral issues, and viewed moral rules as unalterable by religious authorities. They also viewed the status of moral transgressions as noncontingent on God's word. Furthermore, most of the Dutch Reform Calvinist children responded that God's command would not make stealing right. These findings indicate that children from these groups maintain a distinct moral position based on justice and welfare criteria from which they apprehend the moral aspects of the Christian GodIssues of morality were conceptualized by Conservative and Orthodox children and adolescents in terms of the impact actions had on the welfare of others, and not as a function of religious prescriptions or commands from God [emphasis added]. As with the subjects in Study 1, this differentiation between morality and religious prescription was maintained in responses to the "open question." The great majority of both groups of Jewish subjects held that a commandment from God could not make an unjust or harmful act morally right [emphasis added] (1489)."

Cognition 112.1 (2009): 159-74.

Now, this leaves some theists with a dilemma:

1 : Admit that actions can be morally right or morally wrong in virtue of factors such as harm, even if a punishing God does not exist.

Surely, the NT does not contain specifics regarding every possible moral question that may arise. In the case of a moral question that is not dealt with in the NT, how do you determine right and wrong?

Right, in that case I would look at immediate harm, actually physical harm. The problem is we we can not know the long term consequences of our acts - even our good acts.

or

2 : Continue in their implausible moral subjectivism where they say actions can be morally right or morally wrong because a punishing God says so.

Are there actions that are morally wrong, regardless of what God says and regardless of whether God exists?

Of course not... Not objectively.

But if theists go with option 2, then they should not claim that they agree with other people about actions being morally right or morally wrong regardless of what anyone (including God) sanctions. After all, theists who go with option 2 are theists who don't think that there are any actions that objectively right or objectively wrong, since saying that actions are morally right or morally wrong in virtue of God's commands is a form of moral subjectivism, not moral objectivism. So I'll leave those theists to their subjectivism.

There is no good reason to think that objective moral facts actually exist, or that if they did that they would have any authority, or in any sense be preferable to theistic moral law.

[Adam]

Quite a surprising lack of depth in this analysis. Certainly one should consider whether God Himself instills in each (or various) individual(s) a conscience that tells most of us that it is necessarily the case that some things (whatever that individual things they may be) are intrinsically wrong. Indeed this would seem to be the standard sophisticated Theist belief when once absolutism like Natural Law is abandoned.

One might infer from these studies that God regards Fideism as morally wrong, as He instills within us a conviction that some things one believes cannot be over-ridden even by God Himself. Seems Kant was right after all.

[Jichard]

Quite a surprising lack of depth in this analysis. Certainly one should consider whether God Himself instills in each (or various) individual(s) a conscience that tells most of us that it is necessarily the case that some things (whatever that individual things they may be) are intrinsically wrong. Indeed this would seem to be the standard sophisticated Theist belief when once absolutism like Natural Law is abandoned.

First, there's no reason to think that God instilled people with a conscience, anymore than there's a reason to think that God instilled people with chromosomes. There's no evidence (I know of) that God played any role in the characteristics human'have have. In fact, an explanation that include God would be a worse explain, since, for example, the explanation would be less ontologically parsimonious.

Second, even if God instilled people with a conscience, it would still be the case that God's commands are not what make actions morally right, morally wrong, etc. To say otherwise would be to confse epistemology with metaphysics, by confusing how one figures out what actions morally right, wrong, etc. (ex: conscience) with in virtue of what are actions morally right, wrong,etc.

One might infer from these studies that God regards Fideism as morally wrong, as He instills within us a conviction that some things one believes cannot be over-ridden even by God Himself. Seems Kant was right after all.

Not sure how the studies would have implications for what God thinks.

[Adam]

Granted that your thread title does allow for the defense you give, your actual OP simply attacks Theism and any case for God in human morality. I attacked your argument so well apparently that you now have to resort to attacking me for failing to address what you never said (other than the false hint in your title).