Where does morality come from?

[Moral Orel]

No, thats not how it works. You should read Kant and then Hägerström.

Its very hard to understand without some basic studying about metaphysics.

Well, I guess if you Kant explain what I've said is wrong and why...

 

[VirOptimus]

Well, I guess if you Kant explain what I've said is wrong and why...

Its not ”wrong”.

Look, you value ice-cream, sure. But its not a quality of the ice cream, its something you make up (not intentionaly) in your mind. You give the ice cream values (as you say labels) that are metaphysical, beyond the physical compisition of the ice cream (mass temperature chemical composition etc).

You really feel its good so its correct for you that you like it. But the meta physical components doesnt exist, they are all in your mind.

 

[stevevw]

God is good because god is good? Thats circular.

I have already explained how a transcendent being needs to be good to be worthy and justified to be a moral lawgiver. I am just giving a third option to the Euthyphro dilemma that rather than God choose good or command good He is good by nature so good is reflected and flows from Him to us.

I take it your answer is no, god cant change morals. So he/she/it isnt omnipotent then?

As explained God doesn't need to choose "good" because He is good by nature and good flows from Him.

Was god good when he/she/it asked for human sacrifice?

I have already explained that God is all good by nature so there is no wrong or evil in Him.

 

[stevevw]

No, he changed many of them. "It was said but I say..."

Your referring to when Jesus said in Mathew 5:27-28

You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This does not change the law. The law says, "do not commit adultery". Jesus adds that you don't have to physically do the act of adultery to break that law. You can break that law in your heart as well when you lust over a married woman. Jesus says the same about a few laws.

Jesus even clarified that the law has not changed by saying Mathew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

So atheists cannot love and have never done anything good to help anyone?

Of course, non-believers can do good and love. I never said they can't. It is not that a person can be good without God but rather can morality exist without God.

100% Agree that the goal is subjective. Disagree that a standard needs to be outside human ideas, especially since no standard has been shown to exist.

It doesn't matter if we cannot show a particular standard only that we can show there are objective morals. Though I disagree that we don't know the objective standard as we live it every day and the majority of philosopher’s concern there are objective morals. People say there are certain moral wrongs that are always wrong and apply universally despite subjective morality, IE doesn't kill, steal, rape, abuse children, discriminate ect and do love and care for children, treat people with respect, treat life as precious, etc.

The objective standard has to be outside humans because anything that comes from a human is personally viewed, preferred, tainted, biased, and arbitrary to each and every individual. Whereas an objective moral standard beyond humans is not subject to any of that just in the same way the earth is objective a sphere and personal opinions don't count even if someone thinks it's flat. The earth is round not because you or I say so but because it is round in of itself.

Then show it.

You came in late to the debate. I have already done this here #1611, #2151, #1648, #1327, #1149, #1920. You will have to have a quick look at each because they cover the argument and then some objections.

Then make the argument. If the God of the bible is the moral lawgiver I disagree that all of his actions have been moral. There is no reason why a God cannot be evil.

As mentioned I don't have to initially show that the moral lawgiver is the God of the Bible. That is a different and complex argument. I can just show that some transcendent being needs to be the moral lawgiver because an objective lawgiver needs to be beyond humans which means they have to be transcendent and all good.

A case can be made for the God of the Bible as He is all good and no evil exists in Him despite you saying. You are determining things from your human perspective and that is why an objective moral lawgiver is beyond humans. God as the creator and saviour has a bigger plan and what is done as part of that can be justified for reasons beyond what you and I can fully understand. But the fact is God is all good and no evil is in Him. Christ stated this while on earth.

No. You seem to think that you have demonstrated an objective standard as you define it. You have not.

You will have to read and understand the logical proposition that we are justified to believe that there are objective morals based on our lived moral experience of them. It is based on the Theory of Experience and the Theory of knowledge.

Until then all we have is our reason, logic and empathy etc. to determine morals.

Yes and that is what the logical proposition that we are justified to believe that objective moral exists based on our lived moral experience is about.

Perceptual Experience and Perceptual Justification
Perceptual Experience and Perceptual Justification (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Appearances, Rationality, and Justified Belief
Appearances, Rationality, and Justified Belief | Semantic Scholar
The Epistemology of Perception
Epistemology of Perception, The | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[Kylie]

Yes and that is what the logical proposition that we are justified to believe that objective moral exists based on our lived moral experience is about.

I have lost track of how many times I've told you that our lived moral experience is subjective.

 

[VirOptimus]

I have already explained how a transcendent being needs to be good to be worthy and justified to be a moral lawgiver. I am just giving a third option to the Euthyphro dilemma that rather than God choose good or command good He is good by nature so good is reflected and flows from Him to us.

As explained God doesn't need to choose "good" because He is good by nature and good flows from Him.

I have already explained that God is all good by nature so there is no wrong or evil in Him.

Just non-answers.

 

[stevevw]

I have lost track of how many times I've told you that our lived moral experience is subjective.

You say that like you are trying to express some sort of truth. Is that an objective statement or are you just telling me "I think lived experience is subjective but you could be wrong"?

It doesn't matter what your personal view is there is evidence that the way people express themselves and act that they are doing so because they actually think they are expressing the truth. I have provided that support before but you seem to ignore it. These supports come from mostly atheist links from various sites that work in the moral-ethical fields from experts who know what they are talking about. I have decided to not just rely on what I say but provide evidence IE

Murder is wrong. This is not just a matter of subjective personal preference, it’s an objective fact. That means if it’s true for me, then it’s true for you and for everyone else too. And if someone claims that murder is OK, then they’re mistaken. This is the way many of us tend to think and talk about many moral issues, not just murder. We refer to moral facts. And we prove our moral stance is the correct one by appealing to these facts.
The greatest moral challenge of our time? It's how we think about morality itself

The usual assumption is that ordinary people treat moral judgments as getting at something objective
Do People Actually Believe in Objective Moral Truths? « On the Human

Most of us see ourselves as capable of recognizing what is good, bad, valuable, and worthwhile. We think of ourselves as beings whose moral beliefs — about the badness of suffering, for example — are objectively true.
Morals Are Objective

Morality is a paradigm example of something that can be, and usually is, independent from any individual person. Whether a deed is moral or immoral does not depend on the judgment or feeling or whim of any single person.

Can I name one moral rule that a naturalist can say is objective? Sure: "Torturing innocent people is morally wrong." I could list many more such moral rules. I know this moral rule because I learned it, I believe it, and I live it, and I’m glad to live in a society that tries to follow it. Its validity does not depend on my private whim — I know that it would remain valid even if I became mentally deranged and cruelly violent.
There is Objective Morality in Nature | Center for Inquiry

Most Americans accept that “murder is wrong” is a moral fact. Therefore, we have no problem imposing that moral law on society and holding all people, regardless of their personal beliefs and opinions, to that moral standard.

If opinions are not facts, then they cannot or should not be imposed on others. In other words, “To each his own.” Perhaps I’m against [insert controversial issue], but who am I to impose that personal belief on others?
Moral facts and the Common Core

A subjective statement is still a descriptive statement that is determined to be true by reference to facts. It’s simply a descriptive statement referring to facts about our inner states—our desires, our sentiments—as opposed to something in the world. To claim that moral judgments are subjective is to claim that they are true or false based on how a particular person feels. That’s not how most of us regard moral judgments.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry

Are there good arguments for objective morality? What do philosophers think about moral realism?
A 2009 PhilPapers survey shows that 56.4% of philosophers were moral realists, 27.7% weren’t, and 15.9% held some other position.

For every philosopher who thinks there aren’t any objective moral facts, two philosophers think there are. This result isn’t indicative of philosophers being religious, either. The same survey found that just under fifteen percent of philosophers accepted or leaned towards theism. Over seventy percent were atheists, and twelve percent held some other position. So quite a lot of philosophers think that there are moral facts but don’t think that God exists.

But even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.

But if the question was not “is moral realism true” but “is there a good case to be made for moral realism”, I suspect the percentage would jump from 56.4% to somewhere in the high nineties.
Are there good arguments for objective morality? What do philosophers think about moral realism? : AskPhilosophyFAQ

So as you can see most people think there are objective morals. That we think and act like there are objective morals and duties despite subjective opinion or whether people are religious or not. This is a natural and logical position based on people's intuition.

You have to admit that we all think and act like some things are always wrong no matter what people personally think. We intuitively know that seeing a child being harmed or someone stealing someone's hard-earned possessions is never the right thing to do regardless of someone saying it is OK to do. And when someone does say it's OK to do we know that the person is mistaken and objectively wrong. We look at anyone who says differently as being unsound and irrational.

 

[stevevw]

Just non-answers.

Is that your personal opinion. I gave an answer in saying there was another option to your logical fallacy (false dilemma) where you are trying to put God into a box you personally think is correct. I also provide independent support for this.

 

[Kylie]

You say that like you are trying to express some sort of truth. Is that an objective statement or are you just telling me "I think lived experience is subjective but you could be wrong"?

It doesn't matter what your personal view is there is evidence that the way people express themselves and act that they are doing so because they actually think they are expressing the truth. I have provided that support before but you seem to ignore it. These supports come from mostly atheist links from various sites that work in the moral-ethical fields from experts who know what they are talking about. I have decided to not just rely on what I say but provide evidence IE

Murder is wrong. This is not just a matter of subjective personal preference, it’s an objective fact. That means if it’s true for me, then it’s true for you and for everyone else too. And if someone claims that murder is OK, then they’re mistaken. This is the way many of us tend to think and talk about many moral issues, not just murder. We refer to moral facts. And we prove our moral stance is the correct one by appealing to these facts.
The greatest moral challenge of our time? It's how we think about morality itself

The usual assumption is that ordinary people treat moral judgments as getting at something objective
Do People Actually Believe in Objective Moral Truths? « On the Human

Most of us see ourselves as capable of recognizing what is good, bad, valuable, and worthwhile. We think of ourselves as beings whose moral beliefs — about the badness of suffering, for example — are objectively true.
Morals Are Objective

Morality is a paradigm example of something that can be, and usually is, independent from any individual person. Whether a deed is moral or immoral does not depend on the judgment or feeling or whim of any single person.

Can I name one moral rule that a naturalist can say is objective? Sure: "Torturing innocent people is morally wrong." I could list many more such moral rules. I know this moral rule because I learned it, I believe it, and I live it, and I’m glad to live in a society that tries to follow it. Its validity does not depend on my private whim — I know that it would remain valid even if I became mentally deranged and cruelly violent.
There is Objective Morality in Nature | Center for Inquiry

Most Americans accept that “murder is wrong” is a moral fact. Therefore, we have no problem imposing that moral law on society and holding all people, regardless of their personal beliefs and opinions, to that moral standard.

If opinions are not facts, then they cannot or should not be imposed on others. In other words, “To each his own.” Perhaps I’m against [insert controversial issue], but who am I to impose that personal belief on others?
Moral facts and the Common Core

A subjective statement is still a descriptive statement that is determined to be true by reference to facts. It’s simply a descriptive statement referring to facts about our inner states—our desires, our sentiments—as opposed to something in the world. To claim that moral judgments are subjective is to claim that they are true or false based on how a particular person feels. That’s not how most of us regard moral judgments.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry

Are there good arguments for objective morality? What do philosophers think about moral realism?
A 2009 PhilPapers survey shows that 56.4% of philosophers were moral realists, 27.7% weren’t, and 15.9% held some other position.

For every philosopher who thinks there aren’t any objective moral facts, two philosophers think there are. This result isn’t indicative of philosophers being religious, either. The same survey found that just under fifteen percent of philosophers accepted or leaned towards theism. Over seventy percent were atheists, and twelve percent held some other position. So quite a lot of philosophers think that there are moral facts but don’t think that God exists.

But even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.

But if the question was not “is moral realism true” but “is there a good case to be made for moral realism”, I suspect the percentage would jump from 56.4% to somewhere in the high nineties.
Are there good arguments for objective morality? What do philosophers think about moral realism? : AskPhilosophyFAQ

So as you can see most people think there are objective morals. That we think and act like there are objective morals and duties despite subjective opinion or whether people are religious or not. This is a natural and logical position based on people's intuition.

You have to admit that we all think and act like some things are always wrong no matter what people personally think. We intuitively know that seeing a child being harmed or someone stealing someone's hard-earned possessions is never the right thing to do regardless of someone saying it is OK to do. And when someone does say it's OK to do we know that the person is mistaken and objectively wrong. We look at anyone who says differently as being unsound and irrational.

I see a lot of statements from people who agree with you, but no support for any of them.

 

[VirOptimus]

Is that your personal opinion. I gave an answer in saying there was another option to your logical fallacy (false dilemma) where you are trying to put God into a box you personally think is correct. I also provide independent support for this.[

Your ”answers” are just again, empty assertions that dont make sense. Its just religious blather and no, you have not managed to support anything.

 

[stevevw]

I see a lot of statements from people who agree with you, but no support for any of them.

What do you mean by support? That's the point most people agree that there are objective moral values. The support is the fact that most people believe and live like objective morals are real. It is the same as most people believe and lives like the physical world is real. It is assessing and measuring the lived experience that is the evidence.

 

[stevevw]

Your ”answers” are just again, empty assertions that dont make sense. Its just religious blather and no, you have not managed to support anything.

Once again you need to provide support for what you say as you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing, making empty assertions. The only difference ironically is that I am providing independent support. The articles I supplied are not religious ones and come from mainstream moral philosophers who propose a 3rd often to the Euthyphro dilemma.

I doubt if you have even read the articles as you say you dismiss them. So how can you say that the articles are invalid if you haven't read them? The fact that you dismiss them as religious without even reading them shows your bias and that you have already made up your mind in that anything that opposes your position must be religious rubbish. But that's OK as people disagree but don't attack the person.

You are trying to pin the Christian God down to a certain position that you think He should fit into. That is your opinion. You haven't provided any independent support though. People often try to fit God into being and thinking like us humans but that is not the case.

 

[VirOptimus]

Once again you need to provide support for what you say as you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing, making empty assertions. The only difference ironically is that I am providing independent support. The articles I supplied are not religious ones and come from mainstream moral philosophers who propose a 3rd often to the Euthyphro dilemma.

I doubt if you have even read the articles as you say you dismiss them. So how can you say that the articles are invalid if you haven't read them? The fact that you dismiss them as religious without even reading them shows your bias in that anything that opposes your position must be religious rubbish. Your debating style just isn't reasoned like you claim people should do at all and full of logical fallacies.

You are trying to pin the Christian God down to a certain position that you think He should fit into. That is your opinion. You haven't provided any independent support for it whereas I have.

I wont read anything you link to as your posting history shows your dishonest linking.

But my points stand. You assert lots of unprovable things and makes emotional, valueridden religious arguments that has no place in philosophy.

 

[stevevw]

I wont read anything you link to as your posting history shows your dishonest linking.

Therefore your not in any position to make any claims about my posts as you have insufficient information. Your assertions have no backup. Therefore you cannot make claims my posts are unsubstantiated because you don't really know.

But my points stand. You assert lots of unprovable things and make emotional, value ridden religious arguments that has no place in philosophy.

Lol but despite all that you say your point still stands. How does your point stand, according to who or what information? You haven't got any evidence and you have not even checked your opponent's support. The articles I linked were philosophical ones. But you wouldn't know that because you don't check them.

Divine Command Theory
William Alston
goodness is rooted not in commands but in the unchanging goodness of God’s nature. This means of course that morality ceases to be arbitrary since God’s nature is always good and would consequently never make commands that were not consistent with His goodness.
Divine Command Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

William Alston was one of America's prominent philosophers.

This is based on what the Bible states about God's nature. Its a logical argument and not a religious claim. You have to argue that this argument is logically invalid and not attack the source or make logical fallacies that have no substance or reason.

 

[VirOptimus]

Therefore your not in any position to make any claims about my posts as you have insufficient information. Your assertions have no backup. Therefore you cannot make claims my posts are unsubstantiated because you don't really know.

Lol but despite all that you say your point still stands. How does your point stand, according to who or what information? You haven't got any evidence and you have not even checked your opponent's support. The articles I linked were philosophical ones. But you wouldn't know that because you don't check them.

Divine Command Theory
William Alston
goodness is rooted not in commands but in the unchanging goodness of God’s nature. This means of course that morality ceases to be arbitrary since God’s nature is always good and would consequently never make commands that were not consistent with His goodness.
Divine Command Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

William Alston was one of America's prominent philosophers.

This is based on what the Bible states about God's nature. Its a logical argument and not a religious claim. You have to argue that this argument is logically invalid and not attack the source or make logical fallacies that have no substance or reason.

Every claim about god(s) existing is a religious one. Logic does not enter into it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Its not ”wrong”.

Look, you value ice-cream, sure. But its not a quality of the ice cream, its something you make up (not intentionaly) in your mind. You give the ice cream values (as you say labels) that are metaphysical, beyond the physical compisition of the ice cream (mass temperature chemical composition etc).

Based on what I've written thus far, what do you believe, specifically, that I am claiming is a quality of chocolate ice cream?

 

[VirOptimus]

Based on what I've written thus far, what do you believe, specifically, that I am claiming is a quality of chocolate ice cream?

You havent claimed anything beside you liking it.

 

[Moral Orel]

You havent claimed anything beside you liking it.

Then why do you keep telling me I "give the ice cream values" and "make value judgements"?

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why do you keep telling me I "give the ice cream values" and "make value judgements"?

Because of your questions, you ask if you are wrong and I explain why thats a silly question.

 

[stevevw]

Every claim about god(s) existing is a religious one. Logic does not enter into it.

That is not the point. You brought into the argument about the status of God regarding morality. By doing that you accepted the scenario that God was real for the sake of that argument. You can't have your cake and eat it too by making claims about God's status and then change the goalposts halfway through and appeal that there is no evidence for God. The logic was valid because we both accepted that when we began to debate God's moral status.