Utilitarianism

[robertb]

Then God's legal law is derived from God's moral character. I don't see the big deal here.

Works for God, I suppose, the rest of us, not so much due to the whole one can't possibly understand God except in a limited way through analogy.

That said, perhaps you actually derive your morality from your own moral character.

[JimL]

But Jim, if the Golden Rule, is God's rule, then it is grounded in His immutable moral character. If not, you are back to fickle human reason, not all men believe Jim that the golden rule is a worthy ethical goal or worth following. And their reasoning is just as valid as yours - considering their goals.

Not really seer. If morals are merely rules, arbitrarily set by god, with no basis in reason, then they are still arbitrary and meaningless because without sound reason underpinning them, what is moral would only be so because "god said so, or god decided it to be so." Immutable moral character is a meaningless attribute to bestow on anyone, including god, unless morality actually means something in and of itself. In order for morality to be objective, then morality can't be grounded in something else, as that would make it subjective.

You will argue here, I think, that morals are not arbitrary, that God does not decide what is right and what is wrong, but if that be the case, then morality would be objective and immutable god or no god.

But we have gone over this point about the objective nature of morals before. If there is a most perfect world in which to live, such as christians dream of in the second life, then the moral system that upholds that world would need be objective, because a most perfect world is not subjective, and so not dependent on fickle human reasoning.

[Truthseeker]

The universally acceptable set of reasons boils down to basic human needs and desires.

What do you mean by "universally acceptable"? We may expect people to disagree, may we not?

Freedom to pursue your own ends is a basic desire that will inherently account for pursuits of the other needs.

Frequently one's end clashes with another's.

It's just how we're wired.

Oh! You think that morality is whatever we can infer from our knowledge of how we're wired.

These things are fundamental, but their appearance varies quite a bit.

What things? One's ends?

The finite set of reasons is ultimately cause and effect combined with recognition of social interactions. Acting against others will cause them to feel threatened and act to protect themselves in some manner. Depending on how threatened, they will potentially make it so that you are no longer able to pursue your own ends. Since that's a fundamental desire, it's in your own interest to not threaten that ability.

Acts of genocide and of enslavement occur frequently. Why may I not argue on that basis that these acts are indeed moral?

It should be noted that we can, and do, willingly limit ourselves in some areas so that we can better achieve our goals in others. That's the essence of cooperation, and it's the basis of human organizations (including government).

Conceivably a frontier town may decide that it is better to cooperate with Jesse James' gang.

[Carrikature]

What do you mean by "universally acceptable"? We may expect people to disagree, may we not?

What things? One's ends?

It's pretty pointless to discuss much with someone that deletes the answer to their questions from the post they are quoting. If anyone disagrees with the items on that list, I would love to see them argue it. So far as I can tell, disagreements are over form, not identity.

Frequently one's end clashes with another's.

So?

Oh! You think that morality is whatever we can infer from our knowledge of how we're wired.

No. There are some roots that can be inferred, yes. The two are not identical. We're wired to do a lot of things that run contrary to pursuit of those things I listed.

Acts of genocide and of enslavement occur frequently. Why may I not argue on that basis that these acts are indeed moral?

Feel free to argue it, but I think it's already been answered in the portion you quoted.

Conceivably a frontier town may decide that it is better to cooperate with Jesse James' gang.

They may decide that, yes. However, a town willingly cooperating with a group of individuals that is known to steal and kill is a town that is threatening its own longevity for obvious reasons. "House the murderer in hopes he won't kill you" has never been a viable strategy.

[seer]

Not really seer. If morals are merely rules, arbitrarily set by god, with no basis in reason, then they are still arbitrary and meaningless because without sound reason underpinning them, what is moral would only be so because "god said so, or god decided it to be so." Immutable moral character is a meaningless attribute to bestow on anyone, including god, unless morality actually means something in and of itself. In order for morality to be objective, then morality can't be grounded in something else, as that would make it subjective.

I completely disagree Jim, if moral law is not grounded in God's immutable character then it is totally arbitrary. It would then be grounded in our personal and differing views, desires and reasoning. There would be nothing else apart from God.

You will argue here, I think, that morals are not arbitrary, that God does not decide what is right and what is wrong, but if that be the case, then morality would be objective and immutable god or no god.

No they wouldn't, since morality is grounded in God, apart from God they could not be immutable. How can immutable law exist apart from an immutable law Giver?

[seer]

Works for God, I suppose, the rest of us, not so much due to the whole one can't possibly understand God except in a limited way through analogy.

What does that mean? For instance Scripture says that God is truth, that He can not lie, and therefore lying is morally wrong. That is not hard to understand.

[JimL]

I completely disagree Jim, if moral law is not grounded in God's immutable character then it is totally arbitrary. It would then be grounded in our personal and differing views, desires and reasoning. There would be nothing else apart from God.

No, because the moral underpinnings that would be in the best interests of humanity as a whole are not dependent upon the subjective personal and differing views, desires or reasoning of individuals. If you believe that such an objective system of morals, a system that upholds a best possible world for the whole of humanity, need be given, or grounded in something other than that world itself, then you need to explain why such a system can't be a fact of nature itself.

No they wouldn't, since morality is grounded in God, apart from God they could not be immutable. How can immutable law exist apart from an immutable law Giver?

Again, morals can be objective is the sense of what is in the best interests of humanity as a whole. What is in the best interests of humanity as a whole is not subjective, because what is in the best interests of humanity as a whole is not the same thing as what one may subjectively believe to be in their own personal best interests.

[Truthseeker]

It's pretty pointless to discuss much with someone that deletes the answer to their questions from the post they are quoting. If anyone disagrees with the items on that list, I would love to see them argue it. So far as I can tell, disagreements are over form, not identity.




So?




No. There are some roots that can be inferred, yes. The two are not identical. We're wired to do a lot of things that run contrary to pursuit of those things I listed.




Feel free to argue it, but I think it's already been answered in the portion you quoted.




They may decide that, yes. However, a town willingly cooperating with a group of individuals that is known to steal and kill is a town that is threatening its own longevity for obvious reasons. "House the murderer in hopes he won't kill you" has never been a viable strategy.

I am not sure what to do now. I guess I'll let others (examples are Seer and Mountain Man) debate Jim L from now on.

[Carrikature]

I am not sure what to do now. I guess I'll let others (examples are Seer and Mountain Man) debate Jim L from now on.

You could present some arguments.

You asked what things I was referring to, but I listed those in my initial response to you. Do you disagree with them? Do you think that list is incomplete?

[seer]

No, because the moral underpinnings that would be in the best interests of humanity as a whole are not dependent upon the subjective personal and differing views, desires or reasoning of individuals. If you believe that such an objective system of morals, a system that upholds a best possible world for the whole of humanity, need be given, or grounded in something other than that world itself, then you need to explain why such a system can't be a fact of nature itself.

So if killing the majority of Muslims is the best interest of humanity as a whole then that would be good? Of course Communists, Socialists, Political Conservatives or Muslims may have a completely different ideas of what constitutes the best interest of humanity. In other words Jim, who gets to decide what is in the best interest of humanity? You? There can be no non-arbitrary ideal apart from God.

Again, morals can be objective is the sense of what is in the best interests of humanity as a whole. What is in the best interests of humanity as a whole is not subjective, because what is in the best interests of humanity as a whole is not the same thing as what one may subjectively believe to be in their own personal best interests.

Of course it is completely subjective Jim, who gets to decide what constitutes the best interest of humanity as a whole? Then, if you can figure this out, how do you enforce it?

[JimL]

So if killing the majority of Muslims is the best interest of humanity as a whole then that would be good? Of course Communists, Socialists, Political Conservatives or Muslims may have a completely different ideas of what constitutes the best interest of humanity. In other words Jim, who gets to decide what is in the best interest of humanity? You? There can be no non-arbitrary ideal apart from God.

People killing each other is obviously not in the best interests of people. Lets say that the best moral system is that which comes from gods immutable moral character, wouldn't it still be the best moral system if god had nothing to do with it? Of course it would, so to insist that morality is grounded in god is unfounded, based on nothing but ones belief in the existence of god. Its just not a valid or cogent argument.

Of course it is completely subjective Jim, who gets to decide what constitutes the best interest of humanity as a whole? Then, if you can figure this out, how do you enforce it?

Nobody gets to decide seer, what is in the best interests of the whole of humanity is in the best interests of the whole of humanity no matter what any one individual may think. Thats what makes morality objective!

[seer]

People killing each other is obviously not in the best interests of people. Lets say that the best moral system is that which comes from gods immutable moral character, wouldn't it still be the best moral system if god had nothing to do with it? Of course it would, so to insist that morality is grounded in god is unfounded, based on nothing but ones belief in the existence of god. Its just not a valid or cogent argument.

No Jim, because the best possible moral system may include a love for God and obedience to Him.

Nobody gets to decide seer, what is in the best interests of the whole of humanity is in the best interests of the whole of humanity no matter what any one individual may think. Thats what makes morality objective!

That is false Jim, because what constitutes the best moral system is grounded in what we (individually or collectively) believe constitutes the best possible world and there you get disagreement: Communists, Socialists, Political Conservatives, Anarchists, Christians or Muslims all hold to different ideals. And what you consider best interests humanity is only, in the end, your opinion. How could it be otherwise?

[robertb]

What does that mean? For instance Scripture says that God is truth, that He can not lie, and therefore lying is morally wrong. That is not hard to understand.

That seems to set up the proverbial shooting fish in a barrel response. Do you believe that God and God's actions are understandable?

Are you claiming that mere mortals can know the mind of God?

On a related note. Do you think it is possible that God created man with the ability to determine, for himself, right from wrong? Or do you believe that God created man without such an ability and that only through specific direction from God himself could man possibly be able to determine right from wrong?

[seer]

That seems to set up the proverbial shooting fish in a barrel response. Do you believe that God and God's actions are understandable?

To a large degree yes, as the example I gave.

Are you claiming that mere mortals can know the mind of God?

Of course if God decided to tell us His mind.

On a related note. Do you think it is possible that God created man with the ability to determine, for himself, right from wrong? Or do you believe that God created man without such an ability and that only through specific direction from God himself could man possibly be able to determine right from wrong?

I think that because we were created in the image of God that we do have an inherent moral sense, though sin has twisted it.

[JimL]

No Jim, because the best possible moral system may include a love for God and obedience to Him.

Nope. A best moral system would be a system that if it were upheld the best interests of the human community would result. That would be true whether the source of morality were either god or reason. Your argument is that the source of morality is god, but that is simply, and only based, on your belief that god is the source of morality. Ergo, that god is the source of morality argument is a circular one.

That is false Jim, because what constitutes the best moral system is grounded in what we (individually or collectively) believe constitutes the best possible world and there you get disagreement: Communists, Socialists, Political Conservatives, Anarchists, Christians or Muslims all hold to different ideals. And what you consider best interests humanity is only, in the end, your opinion. How could it be otherwise?

No, thats where I think you are off track seer. What is in the best interests of the human community as a whole is not dependent upon either our individual or our collective beliefs or opinions of what is best. The christian notion of Paradise for instance, could be thought of as being founded upon the best moral system for the community of man, but again, it would still be the best system whether its source were god or not.