Morality

[quatona]

These threads always make me wonder if simply saying "The God I believe in thinks so, too" would magically give my moral stances more weight.
I might consider doing so - if only for the reason that I will acquire the privilege of going to a Holy War.

 

[SPF]

Allandavid, please let me know what of the following you disagree with and why:

Objective means that something is morally right or morally wrong regardless of what anyone, or any consensus thinks. The model you're presenting is not one of objective morals and values.

You're suggesting that morality is fluid and develops and changes depending upon the popular opinion, or consensus of the culture one lives in.

For morality to be objective than what is right and wrong cannot be determined in any shape or form by a consensus. This is an obvious contradiction to what you've suggested is the case regarding morality.

If morals are objective than the consensus can be wrong, but according to you it is the consensus itself that is the determining factor in moral norms.

So is a model where a God´s opinion establishes morals and values.

This would not be the case if the God in question was defined as a Maximally Great Being (MGB), where one of His essential attributes was immutability.

This is precisely why when man is the measure of morality that morality, just as allandavid has described, is subjective and consensus driven. For men change and are not immutable, nor does one man possess more inherent authority over another. Those are not problems for a MGB.

 

[Dave-W]

that I have to prove that deserting a child isn't always wrong!!!

In the ancient Greek culture of Aristotle and Plato - deserting an unwanted infant on the side of a mountain was considered morally acceptable.

 

[quatona]

This would not be the case if the God in question was defined as a Maximally Great Being (MGB), where one of His essential attributes was immutability.

If defining words would solve the problem, I could easily solve it without a God.

This is precisely why when man is the measure of morality that morality

...and when man is the measure in defining a "maximally great being".

 

[KCfromNC]

Um, no. In the post I'm quoting, I don't see what standard you pointed out. You need to be more specific.

"simply define something to be good and therefore it is", same standard you mentioned believers use.

 

[KCfromNC]

The simple reality is that if God does not exist, then there is no foundation upon which any person can authoritatively state that any action X is immoral.

Citation needed.

 

[quatona]

If action X is objectively wrong on a moral level, then that necessarily means that the action is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks, feels, or believes. In fact, if something is objectively morally wrong, then every single person on the planet could believe that the action is good, and they would all be wrong.

Yes: rape, torture, theft, assault could all be right in this case. That´s why I don´t even care for an "objective morality", in the first place.

And again, I don't know why an atheist would even care whether or not objective moral and values exist anyway.

...and I don´t know why anyone would care about a morality that´s completely removed from human standards, criteria and values. Got nothing to do with theism or atheism.

 

[SPF]

Citation needed.

Why exactly is a citation needed? I suppose I could list a number of atheist philosophers that hold to moral relativism, it wouldn't be difficult. Or I could list a number of Christian philosophers that agree as well. But then I might be accused of appealing to authority.

Premise 1: If man is the ultimate authority, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Man is the ultimate authority.
Conclusion: Objective moral values and duties do not exist.

The above is a logically valid syllogism. In support of P1, I would assert that no man has more inherent authority over another man, and that men have differing opinions over what is morally right and what is morally wrong. The problem comes in with P2 because as man is the ultimate authority, there is no objective way to determine who is right when differing moral opinions surface. The best that man can do is come together in a group and create a temporary consensus by which they have the power to enforce. This is essentially then a "might makes right" approach. But this doesn't remove the problem of moral relativism as a consensus is formed by opinion, and a consensus can change.

The obvious reality is that if man is the measure of morality, then morality is relative. Again, this should be obvious. I'm not saying anything that should be anything more than a "duh" statement to an atheist.

 

[Khalliqa]

^^ SPF, Am I correct in assuming you believe that the ethical code human beings use comes from an entity called God and without that entity's instruction human beings are unable to determine the difference between right and wrong? And any explanation outside of this is an incorrect view?

 

[quatona]

Premise 1: If man is the ultimate authority, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Premise rejected.
Look, I can do that, too:
Premise 1: If God is the ultimate authority , then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Or, more to the point: If morality is determined by an authority, it can´t be objective.

 

[SPF]

^^ SPF, Am I correct in assuming you believe that the ethical code human beings use comes from an entity called God and without that entity's instruction human beings are unable to determine the difference between right and wrong? And any explanation outside of this is an incorrect view?

At this point, I'm only discussing the nature of morality within the framework of God not existing. While I don't mind talking about my beliefs, I would rather not run down any red herrings at the moment.

Premise rejected (Referring to my P1).

I'm confused. My P1 asserts that if man is the ultimate authority that objective morals and values do not exist. You stated that if morality is determined by an authority, it can't be objective. How exactly do you disagree with my P1? Can you explain how moral values and duties are determined in a universe without God?

Also, you're wrong about the inability for morality to be objective if determined by an authority because if the authority is a Maximally Great Being (MGB), with immutability as one of its attributes, then it would be the case that moral commands would be objective.

 

[quatona]

I'm confused. My P1 asserts that if man is the ultimate authority that objective morals and values do not exist. You stated that if morality is determined by an authority, it can't be objective. How exactly do you disagree with my P1?

In that I disagree with your qualifier "by man".

Can you explain how moral values and duties are determined in a universe without God?

Are you asking how we de facto determine moral values and duties, or are you asking about your oxymoron "objective morality"?
In both cases, however, the existence of a God is irrelevant.

Also, you're wrong about the inability for morality to be objective if determined by an authority because if the authority is a Maximally Great Being (MGB), with immutability as one of its attributes, then it would be the case that moral commands would be objective.

No, they might be considered authoritative (for those who accept this being as authoritative) - but that´s a completely different thing than being objective.

On another note: Who gets to determine whether an entity is "maximally great"? What´s the process and method of determining this (apart from playing mere semantics games)?

 

[Khalliqa]

At this point, I'm only discussing the nature of morality within the framework of God not existing. While I don't mind talking about my beliefs, I would rather not run down any red herrings at the moment.

It would have helped to understand why you're stuck advancing a position and querying others seemingly from this position but not really exploring the possibility that your position has flaws.

That wouldn't be a red herring to the person with whom you're communicating or the conversation. But I understand the need for protection if you're not ready for it.

 

[SPF]

Are you asking how we de facto determine moral values and duties, or are you asking about your oxymoron "objective morality"?
In both cases, however, the existence of a God is irrelevant.

What I am asserting is that VIA a worldview of atheism, that morality is not objective. Objective in this context would mean that the morality of action X is not determined by opinion, feeling, belief, or even mass consensus. I haven't actually see anyone disagree with me on this. Do you? If you do, can you outline a positive argument by which morality can be objective?

 

[quatona]

What I am asserting is that VIA a worldview of atheism,

There´s no such thing as a "worldview of atheism". It has been explained to you before. Get over it.

that morality is not objective.

Morality can´t be objective - with or without there being a God.

Objective in this context would mean that the morality of action X is not determined by opinion, feeling, belief, or even mass consensus.

...but by what?

I haven't actually see anyone disagree with me on this. Do you? If you do, can you outline a positive argument by which morality can be objective?

No, why would I? I am not the guy who tries to argue based on the idea that there an "objective" morality is possible. You are. I just notice that the way by which you arrive at the framework that allows for an "objective morality" (namely by means of defining something to be authoritative, and by equating "authoritative" and "objective") everyone can - believer or non-believer.

 

[Dave-W]

There´s no such thing as a "worldview of atheism".

A singular atheist worldview? Maybe not, but there is a whole system of worldviews that have atheism at their center. The details vary but the core is the same.

 

[quatona]

A singular atheist worldview? Maybe not, but there is a whole system of worldviews that have atheism at their center.

No.

 

[SPF]

There´s no such thing as a "worldview of atheism". It has been explained to you before. Get over it.

Quatona, I'm not sure what level of education you have, but a first year undergrad philosophy student would have been taught that each person has a worldview. Being condescending and telling me to "get over it" because I, and the rest of the philosophical world disagree with you isn't going to get you very far. Your core beliefs about the world in which you live in constitute your worldview.

Morality can´t be objective

I'm glad we're on the same page, at least in part, as you don't believe that objective morals can exist within an atheistic worldview. I say in part, because I think they can exist in a theistic worldview. So we're half-way there at least with you.

 

[quatona]

Quatona, I'm not sure what level of education you have, but a first year undergrad philosophy student would have been taught that each person has a worldview.

Yes, and this wasn´t in dispute. Musicians and housewifes have worldviews, too, but that doesn´t render them musician worldviews or housewife worldviews.

I'm glad we're on the same page, at least in part, as you don't believe that objective morals can exist within an atheistic worldview.

Please abstain from misrepresenting me. The qualifier "within an atheistic worldview" is not only based on a false premise, it is also redundant and misleading when you try to paraphrase my view. It is you superimposing your premises upon my statements.

 

[Dave-W]

Yes, and this wasn´t in dispute. Musicians and housewifes have worldviews, too, but that doesn´t render them musician worldviews or housewife worldviews.

IF those are central tenets of their world view, why not?

My world view could be described many different ways. "Musician world view" might be one of them. I hear music and song references in everything.