Morality is objective, except when it isn't

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I've already destroyed Euthyphro's Dilemma; and I don't need to destroy whatever post-mock dilemma is surreptitiously lifted and misapplied to Christian Theology. The second of these is a non-issue.

I mean, if you don't want to believe that biblical revelation gives us only a few tidbits about God's nature, tidbits that we can't fully comprehend let alone fully systematize (Kierkegaard would probably be happy for me to say this), and you thereby don't want to believe in a God for which empirically demonstrable meanings can't be had to the levels of "sufficiency" that you individually prefer, then by all means........don't believe.

I can't make you believe. And I give you the freedom to not believe. [You're welcome!]

You've had an abysmal showing in this thread. You better hope there are no doubting Christians reading along.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, morality itself is not subjective in this case because of the actual commandment God gave. God never commanded man not to kill He commanded man not to commit murder which is an unlawful killing.

And when God killed David's infant son, it was unlawful. "The father shall not be put to death for the sins of the son, nor vice versa."
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,111
7,243
Dallas
✟873,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And when God killed David's infant son, it was unlawful. "The father shall not be put to death for the sins of the son, nor vice versa."

The death of David’s son would not be immoral at all if he was accepted into heaven, on the contrary it would’ve been a huge blessing.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The death of David’s son would not be immoral at all if he was accepted into heaven, on the contrary it would’ve been a huge blessing.

So now you think the consequences of an action determine whether or not it is moral, even though just a second ago you were talking about commandments. Are you taking this conversation seriously? I'm ready to eject from this dialogue at the instant I determine you're a troll.

With regards to David's son apparently being sent to heaven, you didn't say that he was sent to heaven because he was struck dead by God. I infer - and do tell me if I'm making an inappropriate inference - that you believe that children who do not yet become aware of their sins, or reach the "age of accountability", are automatically sent to heaven upon death. Is this your belief? If so, are aborted babies sent to heaven or do they not have souls?
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I've already destroyed Euthyphro's Dilemma
I honestly can't see any evidence of that. Perhaps you can spell it out?
I don't need to destroy whatever post-mock dilemma is surreptitiously lifted and misapplied to Christian Theology. The second of these is a non-issue.
I'm afraid you're going to have to prove that. On a debating forum, you're quite welcome to ignore whatever you like, of course. But if you are presented with a challenge, you must either defeat it, or else admit that you have been defeated by it. That's how debating works.
I mean, if you don't want to believe that biblical revelation gives us only a few tidbits about God's nature, tidbits that we can't fully comprehend let alone fully systematize (Kierkegaard would probably be happy for me to say this), and you thereby don't want to believe in a God for which empirically demonstrable meanings can't be had to the levels of "sufficiency" that you individually prefer, then by all means........don't believe.
I'm not sure what this means.
I can't make you believe. And I give you the freedom to not believe. [You're welcome!]
You can't give me something I already have.
 
Upvote 0

Reasonable Christian

Active Member
Dec 15, 2020
185
33
Maryland
✟19,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Even if true it doesnt explain why that will is "good", other than to effectively say: "it just is.".... in other words: no expressible reason. That seems quite unsatisfactory.

Isn't that exactly what you did earlier in this thread by declaring that naturalism "just is" a proper foundation for morality? That is even less satisfying. By saying that naturalism is the foundation for morality, you're basically grounding morality in human evolution. What if we (two humans) disagree on a particular moral issue? Does your evolution-based idea of morality trump mine, or vice versa? And what if you visited another planet where the aliens had evolved to believe that, say, rape was morally acceptable. Would you think that was okay for them because that is what their evolution dictated? I sincerely doubt it.

Everyone grounds morality in something. Christians ground it in God's character. Atheists/materialists tend to ground it in evolution or culture or "human flourishing" or something else that depends on human opinion. On the materialist view, there is nothing that is absolutely immoral for humans to do. If we had evolved differently (a role of the dice on naturalism), our morality would be different. However, I think we can both agree that the Holocaust was absolutely immoral despite the majority opinion in Germany at the time, and it would have been absolutely immoral even if everyone on earth had evolved to think it was right. On a naturalistic view of morality, why is that?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Isn't that exactly what you did earlier in this thread by declaring that naturalism "just is" a proper foundation for morality?
I dont think its proper or improper. It doesnt depend on my approval. I simply think that the experience of human life on earth provides us with the correct explanation for the evolution of morality. Its got nothing to do with me thinking it should be that way.


That is even less satisfying. By saying that naturalism is the foundation for morality, you're basically grounding morality in human evolution. What if we (two humans) disagree on a particular moral issue? Does your evolution-based idea of morality trump mine, or vice versa?
The only trump card is held by the majority in society. None of us individually can enforce our own idiosyncratic morality on another except by standing apart from the law, which puts us in jeopardy. Sometimes thats the right thing to do, as in the struggle for civil equality in the USA.

What made that "right", you ask? Well, the wise among us could see that our apartheid system of human classification was the source of immense suffering and contention among the people. Thats no way to live. I believe that the wise of ancient Israel were beginning to see this too, and we can see the principle prefigured in the Bible (even as it sanctioned the ownership of other human beings. But that was earlier on in our moral evolution).

Everyone grounds morality in something. Christians ground it in God's character. Atheists/materialists tend to ground it in evolution or culture or "human flourishing" or something else that depends on human opinion. On the materialist view, there is nothing that is absolutely immoral for humans to do. If we had evolved differently (a role of the dice on naturalism), our morality would be different. However, I think we can both agree that the Holocaust was absolutely immoral despite the majority opinion in Germany at the time, and it would have been absolutely immoral even if everyone on earth had evolved to think it was right. On a naturalistic view of morality, why is that?
I dont think human flourishing is as mysterious and slippery as you think it is. There's a number of core aspects of human well being that the wise identified pretty early on, and they seem pretty stable. At the periphery things do change, and we need to recognize that as well. Thats where a lot of our moral contention happens. For example: the proper role of women in society. Even just among Christians who claim an absolute source of morality, the moral evolution around this issue would be contentious. Many Christians of an earlier era would be appalled at womens roles and activities that many other Christians completely approve of today.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The death of David’s son would not be immoral at all if he was accepted into heaven, on the contrary it would’ve been a huge blessing.

For that matter, neither would the death of the unborn... they'd be accepted straight into heaven without having to bother with this sinful world in the first place.

Which would logically mean, in the United States in the year 2018 alone, abortion clinics sent an estimated 620,000 souls straight to heaven... how's that for a huge blessing?

The least you could do is send Planned Parenthood a "thank you" card...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Reasonable Christian

Active Member
Dec 15, 2020
185
33
Maryland
✟19,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I dont think its proper or improper. It doesnt depend on my approval. I simply think that the experience of human life on earth provides us with the correct explanation for the evolution of morality. Its got nothing to do with me thinking it should be that way.



The only trump card is held by the majority in society. None of us individually can enforce our own idiosyncratic morality on another except by standing apart from the law, which puts us in jeopardy. Sometimes thats the right thing to do, as in the struggle for civil equality in the USA.

What made that "right", you ask? Well, the wise among us could see that our apartheid system of human classification was the source of immense suffering and contention among the people. Thats no way to live...

I dont think human flourishing is as mysterious and slippery as you think it is. There's a number of core aspects of human well being that the wise identified pretty early on, and they seem pretty stable. At the periphery things do change, and we need to recognize that as well... [Quote shortened to relevant portions]

You didn't address my objection, and you also contradicted yourself. First, you said that the morality evolution has produced isn't "proper or improper," but rather that evolution merely explains how morality developed. This would at least be a coherent position, except you then made several moral judgments (human flourishing is "right," the struggle for equality is "right," apartheid is "no way to live," suffering and contention are to be avoided, etc.). In what do you ground these moral judgments other than your personal opinion? Note that I'm not disagreeing with your judgments; I'm merely questioning how you can ground them in a materialistic worldview that says that the entire universe and everything in it is a cosmic accident, and everyone thinks and acts according to their chemical/biological programming. The only grounding I can detect in your post is "majority rules." So I'll ask the same basic question I did before in a slightly different way: Just for sake of argument, what if every human being on earth except for you thought rape was just fine? Would you change your opinion on rape because the majority of people believed it – that is, because evolution apparently dictated it for the majority? Or would you still believe, in your heart of hearts, that rape is wrong? I'm going to assume it's the latter. The question is how you would justify that belief.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
You haven't addressed my objection. You make all sorts of moral judgments in your post above (human flourishing is "right," women's rights are "right," the struggle for equality is "right," apartheid is "no way to live," etc.). In what do you ground these moral judgments that you imply are or should be universal? Note that I'm not disagreeing with your judgments; I'm merely questioning how you can ground them in a materialistic worldview that says that the entire universe and everything in it is a cosmic accident and everyone acts according to their chemical/biological programming. The only grounding I can detect in your post is "majority rules." So I'll ask again: Just for sake of argument, what if every human being on earth thought rape was just fine except for you? Would you personally think this moral judgment was right because the majority of people believed it – that is, because evolution apparently dictated it for the majority? Or would you still believe, in your heart of hearts, that rape is wrong? I'm pretty sure it's the latter.
The world you describe, where casually inflicting massive suffering on other people is normal and accepted, is simply unrealistic. Its not tenable. If I was fully embedded in that world, I would probably be in the majority just as a matter of odds. But I dont find it a realistic thought experiment.

Sometimes societies do go down the road of some huge moral experiment. If that experiment turns out to violate our natural inclination to enduring satisfaction, it usually crashes and burns. State communism is a good example. Or Nazi fascism.

"Right" is just the flavor that society labels the rules for decent living that the wise have discovered. Even though the derivation of whats "right" comes from the natural conditions of human living, I do think its been essential to imbue it with some kind of supernatural authority. How many among us are truly wise? I think we need the cosmic story of moral derivation, even if its not real, just to keep us in line.
 
Upvote 0

Reasonable Christian

Active Member
Dec 15, 2020
185
33
Maryland
✟19,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The world you describe, where casually inflicting massive suffering on other people is normal and accepted, is simply unrealistic. Its not tenable. If I was fully embedded in that world, I would probably be in the majority just as a matter of odds. But I dont find it a realistic thought experiment.

Sometimes societies do go down the road of some huge moral experiment. If that experiment turns out to violate our natural inclination to enduring satisfaction, it usually crashes and burns. State communism is a good example. Or Nazi fascism.

"Right" is just the flavor that society labels the rules for decent living that the wise have discovered. Even though the derivation of whats "right" comes from the natural conditions of human living, I do think its been essential to imbue it with some kind of supernatural authority. How many among us are truly wise? I think we need the cosmic story of moral derivation, even if its not real, just to keep us in line.

Do I understand correctly that on your view, right and wrong are just a matter of what promotes societal longevity?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Do I understand correctly that on your view, right and wrong are just a matter of what promotes societal longevity?
I think right and wrong are what promotes or diminishes enduring human satisfaction. Sometimes thats not so clear, and wisdom is required. I think thats why we call the worlds great religions "wisdom traditions". Grasping right & wrong in this view is a multigenerational undertaking, as cause/effect relationships between behavior and outcome are often not immediate.
 
Upvote 0

Reasonable Christian

Active Member
Dec 15, 2020
185
33
Maryland
✟19,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think right and wrong are what promotes or diminishes enduring human satisfaction. Sometimes thats not so clear, and wisdom is required. I think thats why we call the worlds great religions "wisdom traditions". Grasping right & wrong in this view is a multigenerational undertaking, as cause/effect relationships between behavior and outcome are often not immediate.

So is "promoting or diminishing enduring human satisfaction" something we all should strive for, or is that just a standard you apply to yourself?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
So is "promoting or diminishing enduring human satisfaction" something we all should strive for, or is that just a standard you apply to yourself?
There's no "should" about it. Its just what people naturally want. People prefer to not suffer.

(I think this is true whether human origins are entirely naturalistic, or if God made us.)
 
Upvote 0

Reasonable Christian

Active Member
Dec 15, 2020
185
33
Maryland
✟19,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There's no "should" about it. Its just what people naturally want. People prefer to not suffer.

(I think this is true whether human origins are entirely naturalistic, or if God made us.)

Ok, I'll ask this another way: Is torturing babies morally wrong, or is it just something that most people naturally don't want to do?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Ok, I'll ask this another way: Is torturing babies morally wrong, or is it just something that most people naturally don't want to do?
Yes its morally wrong. But keep in mind what I understand "morally wrong" means.

I would turn the question back on you, and lets stipulate you'll agree its morally wrong. So let me ask you, why is it morally wrong?
 
Upvote 0

Reasonable Christian

Active Member
Dec 15, 2020
185
33
Maryland
✟19,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes its morally wrong. But keep in mind what I understand "morally wrong" means.

I would turn the question back on you, and lets stipulate you'll agree its morally wrong. So let me ask you, why is it morally wrong?

I'm not sure I do understand (a) why you think it's morally wrong, and (b) if whatever standard you use to make that judgment applies universally or just to you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I'm not sure I do understand (a) why you think it's morally wrong, and (b) if whatever standard you use to make that judgment applies universally or just to you.
a. sort of has 2 answers
1. the reason why we, including me, call it "wrong" is because a world where its ok would be miserable.
2. I also have feelings on the matter. I think those also have naturalistic origins based in the biological facts of us as a social species.

b. absolutely this applies to others, not because someone "says so", but because we're all human with the same biological and similar social ancestry. (Cant speak about hypothetical alien species. I wouldnt know how.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0