Can there be morality without God?

[Eudaimonist]

The problem is no matter what a human may come up with that they can say is moral can never be certain to know that it is truly moral.

They can be certain enough. They might not have omniscient-level certainty or depth, but they can have human-level certainty and depth.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[stevevw]

They can be certain enough. They might not have omniscient-level certainty or depth, but they can have human-level certainty and depth.


eudaimonia,

Mark

But we have seen even with all good intentions that what humans think is good and right can be wrong and lead to bad consequences. So what they think is certainly right can be them deceiving themselves or acting on misinformed info. We can also sabotage what we consider right as well by compromising or corrupting things. This is seen now with climate change and economics. We know that what we are doing to the planet is wrong but we keep doing it. We know that money and materialism often comes at the cost of human life but we still put more importance of that than people. We often think we are right with decisions about taking action in the name of peace and democracy. But then we find that there were other motives that ended up causing more damage in the end and making matters worse like the Iraqi wars.

There are many things we are doing now that we have justified as Ok that will end up causing a lot more harm in the end. Even to the point of destroying many species of animals, other humans and our planet. We even know that we know we are doing wrong but we do it anyway. There is something in us that we cant change or overcome that makes us go down a road of doing the wrong thing. Its a bit like an addicted alcoholic that knows that the next drink is not going to do him any good but he still takes that drink anyway. So unfortunatley for us a race certain enough isn't good enough.

 

[ananda]

Morality is derived from compassion, "do unto others".

 

[Ana the Ist]

OK I can see what happened. You had included some quotes that I had said without high lighting them. Well you did high light the first couple by putting numbers next to them ie 1 and 2. But there were another couple which you mentioned in among your replies which were not high lighted and I didn't see them. I thought they were part of your replies. So I will start again. But I wont elaborate to much as I have made my points previously.




I have answered that with my last reply.
Its more than blind obedience because as I said in my last reply we realize why we should be obedient. We see that the morals of God make sense in our lives through our experience. But refer to my last reply for a more complete answer.

Reason and logic help us with many things. But if you just use reason to work out what morals are then how does that work when under subjective morality people will have different views. Does that mean that reason will conclude that all those different views are all correct at the same time event if some are opposing each other. So it has to be more than reason. There has to be some truth. Otherwise how do we know we are reasoning correctly and not fooling ourselves. Humans have the ability to turn a lie into something OK by justifying it is OK because they rationalize the truth away.


Ok that is my quote. You will have to point out my quotes of high light them as it gets confusing when they dont stand out.


You have said it yourself. I have my reasons for following God. If I have my reasons then I am not following Him blindly. As I mentioned before people follow rules and laws and they can realize why those laws are there. They normally make sense as to why the law is there and its not just there to force people to do things for nothing. Thats the same with God. We realize why it makes sense to follow God because we get better results and better lives.

This goes back to needing a outside source for our morals because humans get it wrong. They cant be trusted. Even when they come to an agreement that something is ok to do it can often lead to bad consequences in the end. Thats because humans cant know all the circumstances and possibilities surrounding a situation. They also are subject to many influences like corruption with money or oil in some cases, manipulations of events, selfish motives, revenge, power in wanting to control things and make others do things their way.

Ironically this is something we in the west do when we pretend to enforce our policies and of peace and democracy on others. Like with the many situations where we have gone in to sort things out. We also mess things up because its more than just being an independent arbitrator. There are corrupt motives behind things such as with power sharing and enforcing others to do things our way. We are not a completely independent and fair judge on things.


This doesn't make sense. Everybody obeys something and sometimes we just have to go along whether we like it or not. Sometimes we may disagree. Does that mean we are blindly following something. If the law or moral that we follow is benefiting us and keeping things from going out of control then why does it matter. If it works it works. But I would say most of the time a Christian realizes that it makes a lot of sense to follow God because it gives them a better life. So if God is getting it right then so what if there are times when a believer has to trust God and may not know completely why God does something. They have ample evidence that He gets it right by their life experiences in keeping their life in order and making things work out.

Well thanks for making the correction... you'd be surprised how many people do that on purpose. Still, I don't see how you made the mistake. Your quote is completely separate from my post, it's in italics, and it's in quotations. Regardless...

You're still blindly obeying god. You have reasons to obey god...wonderful...but you don't question what he asks of you. That's what is meant by "blind obedience"...it has nothing to do with the reasons why you're obeying god, it has everything to do with the fact that you have no idea why he commands you to do/not do something. For example...

One of the commandments is "honor thy mother and father". Why? You could say that god thinks this is a good thing to do... but why? Why is it a good thing to do...especially if you're unfortunate enough to have parents that don't particularly deserve respect, let alone honor? These aren't things that christians can know about god...in fact, you're claiming it's not necessary to know, or even ask, just follow along and do what he says.

That's blind obedience. You don't have a moral code/system, your god does. You don't question it...perhaps because you realize you won't get an answer.

You said this...

Does that mean that reason will conclude that all those different views are all correct at the same time event if some are opposing each other. So it has to be more than reason. There has to be some truth.

What do you mean by truth? 2+2=4...but that's something I can demonstrate to be true. There are truths that you cannot demonstrate....like the truth about what I was doing at 130am yesterday. We could look at the evidence, use it to guess what the truth is, but there's no way to "know" or demonstrate what the truth is. When it comes to morality, you don't even have evidence for what the "truth" is. So why would you assume that morality is something more than opinion.

As I mentioned before people follow rules and laws and they can realize why those laws are there. They normally make sense as to why the law is there and its not just there to force people to do things for nothing.

This is a poor analogy. People can actually find out why laws are created...it's not something we have to guess about. We decide laws largely based upon opinion...when most people agree that something should be a law...it becomes a law. The majority opinion typically decides what laws are passed and created....and changed. Moreover, people don't blindly follow the law... they disobey them at will. God doesn't change his morals based upon opinion. He doesn't reveal why he believes something is good or bad.

This goes back to needing an outside source for our morals because humans get it wrong.

You're assuming there is a moral "truth". There isn't. There's only moral opinions.

They also are subject to many influences like corruption with money or oil in some cases, manipulations of events, selfish motives, revenge, power in wanting to control things and make others do things their way.

I'm actually glad you brought this up. Let's suppose that you didn't have much money or power or influence...but you wanted these things. How could you go about obtaining them in a superstitious world? One way is religion.

But I would say most of the time a Christian realizes that it makes a lot of sense to follow God because it gives them a better life.

I would say that most christians have no idea what it would be like if they just did what they thought was right in any given situation. If they did, I think they'd find that they don't need christianity at all to decide what they should do.

 

[stevevw]

Well thanks for making the correction... you'd be surprised how many people do that on purpose. Still, I don't see how you made the mistake. Your quote is completely separate from my post, it's in italics, and it's in quotations. Regardless...

Well it may have been that way when you sent it but what I got was a couple of my quotes in among your reply without any difference to the style of writing or being separate.

You're still blindly obeying god. You have reasons to obey god...wonderful...but you don't question what he asks of you. That's what is meant by "blind obedience"...it has nothing to do with the reasons why you're obeying god, it has everything to do with the fact that you have no idea why he commands you to do/not do something.

Your under estimating peoples ability to think and reason and to see benefits and results. If someone gets good benefits from doing something isn't that a good reason. If you apply that to non religious example you can say a person may not think that adhering to a diet is worth it when the instructor says do 20 push ups and cut your meals in half. At first you may not see the reasons why. You have to trust that the diet is good and what the instructor is saying will work. But then you begin to see benefits when you do it. That is the evidence and reason you keep doing it. If you didn't get results then you would not do it.

Besides that if you looked at the morals involved with God and then used the same logic that non religious people use for determining morals then thats much the same as well. Why do people conclude that the morals they come up with are valid. Arent they relying on something that has no real valid reason for proving that those morals are true. They base it on human judgement and we know that this is risky and fallible. Yet they are willing to trust that.

So if a Christian uses the same logic but with God what is the difference. If God is said to be all good and without sin then not only are they also using their human reasoning and logic to see if this makes sense that it points to something good. They also get the added bonus of using something that is said to be the best when it comes to right and wrong.

That to me is better than just relying on human judgment which has been shown to get it wrong on many occasions. They may also get it right sometimes but its a hit and miss proposition. Especiall when you consider that the same system for deciding what is right and wrong is subjective. That means two or more opposing views can be right at the same time. Doesnt that show that there has to be wrong views in amoung those views. If so isnt that saying that you are using a system that has a high risk of getting the wrong answers.

For example...

One of the commandments is "honor thy mother and father". Why? You could say that god thinks this is a good thing to do... but why? Why is it a good thing to do...especially if you're unfortunate enough to have parents that don't particularly deserve respect, let alone honor? These aren't things that Christians can know about god...in fact, you're claiming it's not necessary to know, or even ask, just follow along and do what he says.

That's blind obedience. You don't have a moral code/system, your god does. You don't question it...perhaps because you realize you won't get an answer.

No thats no being realistic. The moral of honoring your mother and father is correct. That is a good moral and makes sense. It shows respect and honor. But like with any moral there are exceptions where a greater good or bad can override things. Such as with killing. The moral is dont kill. But if you and your family are being attacked and you life is threatened then there is a justified reason for when you happen to kill. It doesn't change the moral to not kill. It just adds an exception or valid justification for that moral.

So if you have parents that are doing a greater wrong and committing a immoral act then that changes things. You are totally justified because there is a greater immoral act being injected into that situation. But still depending on what it is a person may still honor their parents even if they do wrong towards them. They can forgive and understand the circumstances. But if it is a great wrong then it is totally justified under that moral to take another position. You see you underestimate the thought and reasoning that someone can have. You also make things to black and whit and nothing in between. You are mistaking the valid justifications with a moral from another greater moral act being done that has to be considered and over rides it. Otherwise we are then not honoring the other morals that are involved.

You said this...

Does that mean that reason will conclude that all those different views are all correct at the same time event if some are opposing each other. So it has to be more than reason. There has to be some truth.

Thats better. Now I can tell the difference.

What do you mean by truth? 2+2=4...but that's something I can demonstrate to be true. There are truths that you cannot demonstrate....like the truth about what I was doing at 130am yesterday. We could look at the evidence, use it to guess what the truth is, but there's no way to "know" or demonstrate what the truth is. When it comes to morality, you don't even have evidence for what the "truth" is. So why would you assume that morality is something more than opinion.

So when you or someone else tells me I am wrong with what I believe are you saying you know the truth. How do you know that what you believe is moral is corect and true. I hear many on this forum say I am wrong or that what they say is right. Arent they making a statemnet that they are in the know about what is correct or not.

This is the crux of the matter about subjective and objective morality. You say it comes down to a persons view. Thats fair enough but then that position is taken to then decide what we should actually do in society as being right or wrong. We live by these things all the time. So who decides what right and whats wrong. In deciding whats right and whats wrong is someone saying that what they have decided is true. If someone disagrees because its their subjective view aren't they also correct and have every right to take that position. How can two opposing views about morality be right at the same time.

Whereas objective morality says that there are moral truths. Killing is wrong no matter what. Raping is wrong no matter what. There can be rare justifications but they only happen when a greater moral is being breached. But what subjective morality does is opens the door for many justifications to undermine those morals. Then there are many ways we can allow killing for example. But the important thing is it is clear that killing is wrong and everyone goes by the same morals. It is clear when we break them and we have a clear standard to judge by.

We know that humans are fallible and get things wrong so this is not a good standard to go by. Whether its God or some other method it makes sense to have an independent guide that can is all knowing and infallible that can be the judge of what is right and wrong. Then we have a much better chance of doing the right thing and not ending up with all the bad consequences of our poor judgements.

As I mentioned before people follow rules and laws and they can realize why those laws are there. They normally make sense as to why the law is there and its not just there to force people to do things for nothing.

This is a poor analogy. People can actually find out why laws are created...it's not something we have to guess about. We decide laws largely based upon opinion...when most people agree that something should be a law...it becomes a law. The majority opinion typically decides what laws are passed and created....and changed. Moreover, people don't blindly follow the law... they disobey them at will. God doesn't change his morals based upon opinion. He doesn't reveal why he believes something is good or bad.

Yet we have seen the majority of people make bad decisions time and time again. They are legalizing pot in many states and it may not be long before its legal everywhere. Is this based on the good for all or on some people who have the power to influence decision makers. Is this the result of justifications that make a good argument based on the views of some or a majority. The majority view being good is often wrong because its not always based on the truth. There are many influencing factors that cause people to think they are doing good when they dont know all the facts or dont want to know all the facts or the truth of the matter. Humans get swayed and corrupted. They manipulate things and make compromises which end up taking away from what is good. Who ever can make the best argument for something to be good will have their way.

Some states in the US and other countries have the death penalty. They think they are right and doing good. Some allowed smoking in the past and thought it was good. The coalition of the willing thought they were doing good and bringing peace and democracy to Iraqi and Afghanistan. The governments think they are doing good when they pass laws. But we know they are often wrong by the suffering created in societies. What humans think is the truth and good is different to what God thinks. Humans can think they are being good but it often leads to bad consequences. So even when there is a consensus of opinion that is no guarantee of it being good. But what is more relevant is that subjective morality invites all those influences that cause people to get it wrong. Objective morality takes that all away because its clear what is right and what is wrong.

This goes back to needing an outside source for our morals because humans get it wrong.

You're assuming there is a moral "truth". There isn't. There's only moral opinions.

It just makes sense to have a moral truth. If there is disagreement about morality or if there are many views all saying that theirs is what morals are all about then it makes sense to have a clear set of morals. That way we know where we stand.

They also are subject to many influences like corruption with money or oil in some cases, manipulations of events, selfish motives, revenge, power in wanting to control things and make others do things their way.

I'm actually glad you brought this up. Let's suppose that you didn't have much money or power or influence...but you wanted these things. How could you go about obtaining them in a superstitious world? One way is religion.

Yes just like money and power can be used to manipulate the truth and what is right and wrong so can religion. But that doesn't take away from the fact that in among all that is a moral truth. Religion is man made and can be used to do wrong. In fact it is an even greater way to fool people because it has the disguise of good.

But I would say most of the time a Christian realizes that it makes a lot of sense to follow God because it gives them a better life.

I would say that most Christians have no idea what it would be like if they just did what they thought was right in any given situation. If they did, I think they'd find that they don't need Christianity at all to decide what they should do.

Christianity should be different to this worlds thinking. I have just gone through what I believe is worldly views on truth and peace and doing good. Things like humanity and politically correct views are deceptive and promote world views that actually do harm in the end. They are a bit like religion in that they come across as being all good but actually have a hidden agenda. The system has bad components with it such as commercialism, materialism and other political policies like rights that create disharmony and a situation that causes conflicts and a breakdown in societies. This is the world view of what is good and right.

A christian needs to be separate from this. So things that secular society thinks are acceptable should be unacceptable to Christians. Things like marriage and relationships, attitudes to money, selfish desires, worldly ambitions, sexuality, abortion should be different to what secular society thinks is OK. We should be sacrificing our lives for helping others and not building our own selfish empires in this world. As the bible says anyone who loves their life in this world will lose it and anyone who hates this life will gain eternal life. So there should be a pretty big difference and it should be clear. Some want the best of both worlds and others live a lie. They are like those who build their house on shaky foundations. You should be able to tell a Christian by the fruits they bear. By the good deeds they do.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yet we see that humans have often got it wrong when it comes to assessing all the consequences of the decisions and actions they take. We are constantly seeing the fall out of past decisions taken which have brought bad consequences for future generations. Humans are also susceptible to justifying actions that can cause repercussions through rationalizing something that maybe bad to be ok because it allows them other benefits. They can even corrupt decisions based on selfish reasons like power, money or self interest.

So even though the ideal is to say we may consider the consequences and that is reason enough for us to do the right thing. Our history doesn't show this and there is a lot more to it. Basically we are not in a position to make the right decisions because we are fallible and have a weakness towards an evil side as well. Thats why it makes sense to have someone or something independent of ourselves that may be more reliable than us that we can use to judge what is right and wrong.

You're ignoring the fact that many of the moral travesties committed by humans is a direct result of what "god told them to do".

The fact humans are not a perfectly moral species is irrelevant. The objective consequences to actions are still the same, and the majority of people will identify immoral acts as such.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Without God people are left to decide what is wrong or right...

Oversimplification.

There are other possibilities. We could flip a coin. Heads, stealing is right. Tails, stealing is wrong.

We could have a lottery. A computer could randomly generate lists of right and wrong.

That sounds great to many people because they know what is wrong and right. Oddly, people seldom agree on this. Furthermore, when people gain power over others their view of right and wrong tends to change to right being whatever protects their power or grants them more power...

"The nature of morality

A moral vision of peace, justice and freedom is not hard to establish; the landscape of Eden is easily recognized. What is not easy to understand and resist are the many ways in which the means of achieving that vision are concealed and obscured, and it is with these questions that I shall be most occupied.

Morality arises through the experience of a common humanity and its affirmation in the face of power. Morality is not an individual, but a social matter; it makes demands upon us which extend beyond our finite, individual lives. It is about resisting those forces which seek to drive wedges between us in order that some may feel and claim to be more human than others.

Our common humanity rests upon our common embodiment. We are all made in exactly the same way. We all suffer in the same way. Most immoral enterprises seek in one way or another to deny this truth and to justify the greater suffering of the oppressed or exploited on the grounds of their being ‘different’ in some way – physically, racially, psychologically, genetically, and so on. Absolute, self-conscious immorality, on the other hand, makes use of its knowledge of our common embodiment to inflict maximum pain and threat: the torturer does unto others as he would not have done to himself, and the terrorist, choosing victims at random, implicitly acknowledges the equivalence of all people.

The history of the ‘civilized’ world is one in which powerful minorities have sought (ever more successfully) to impose and exploit conditions of slavery on an impoverished majority. This is necessarily always an immoral undertaking, for by its actions it denies the continuity of humanity between slave and master while seeking ideologically to obscure that denial1.

Morality now

At the turn of the twenty-first century, the structure of global society is grotesquely unjust and the means of maintaining it so not only profoundly immoral but insanely dangerous. We crazed, clever monkeys knowingly contemplate the destruction of our own habitat and yet seem helpless to stop ourselves. There seems to be no moral guidance to point a way out of our predicament. The moral voice, stripped of authority, has been drowned out. God is well and truly dead; the Market has triumphed; only the fittest shall survive. Can there be a moral counter to the new Business barbarism?

Unlike the kinds of arguments which establish scientific knowledge, moral arguments are not progressive and accumulative, nor are they ever conclusive. Moral argument and social critique constitute a running battle with ruling power, and even though they may be dealing with eternal truths, they will never find a form in which these can be asserted once and for all; the best they can hope for is to find ever new ways of re-formulating and re-stating their insights such that brakes are applied to the ever-expanding ambitions of power.

A further difficulty is that, insofar as they are successful, moral argument and praxis will be corrupted and co-opted in the interests of power. Christ’s message becomes ‘The Church’. Because power is power, it holds all the cards, and will never be defeated – only impeded. Marx’s greatest mistake was to assume that capitalism contained the seeds of its own downfall. Seemingly he hadn’t conceived of moving goal-posts

For anyone hoping to win the moral high ground once and for all on the basis of a knock-down argument or a conclusive act of rebellion, the inevitable dominance of a corrupt and corrupting power is likely to be a cause of despair. For such a person the insights into venality, stupidity and corruption of, say, a Swift, turn to absolute cynicism rather than merely profound disillusion. Not only are illusions destroyed, but idealism too is crushed..." -- David Smail, Power, Responsibility and Freedom

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Morality is derived from compassion, "do unto others".

Thats a good formula in that is it "rational attraction to being" - or leads to peple thriving and getting along. The issue is when people say "thats the only way to win the egg and spoon race". Not the case. I am not advocating satanism, jut other "formulas" or strategies for RAB.

 

[Inkfingers]

Morality is derived from compassion, "do unto others".

Actually, no it isn't.

Compassion is a human feeling and if you base morality on compassion you base it on subjective feelings with no more weight than aggression or desire.

Morality, in order to be more than just the idolising of the human, has to be based on something transcendent. Otherwise its just selective whim.

 

[Loudmouth]

Its not as simple as putting God behind whatever people think is right as being OK. What we have seen with some of the acts of evil in the name of God is obviously wrong and everyone knows that.

If God commands immoral acts, then how is God moral?

The bible is clear about what is right and what is wrong. The 10 commandments are clear. What Jesus said is clear. Yes people can twist things but basically it is pretty straight forward how a Christian should live.

Again, you are confusing morality with obedience to a written set of rules.

But this cannot be compared to just some person claiming to know what God said. These are ancient writings that have a lot of history and have been verified in many ways.

The same can be said of many religions that you don't follow.

We know there was a man named Jesus who walked the earth as a preacher. So we can be fairly confident that what was written about what He said is close to the mark.

I don't see how the first sentence leads to the second sentence. Are humans incapable of falsely reporting what a real person has said?

Who said that humans are knowing what morality is. Certainly a lot of this morality seems to have come from a long time ago and the source would be hard to determine. What we come up with now has already been around for thousands of years. The bible is one of those sources for morality. The teachings of Jesus is another source. The thing is there maybe different sources for morality around and man is certainly capable of deciding what he thinks is best. But its not just about that. Its about the application as well and humans have a poor history of knowing and applying what is right and wrong. We may know what is moral but we dont always do it.

How do you know that what is written is actually moral?

But I believe left to our own devices we dont completely know the big picture of what is right and good for us.

Then you can't claim that the Bible is moral nor that God is moral.

 

[stevevw]

If God commands immoral acts, then how is God moral?

God doesn't command evil acts, humans do. The Christian God is seen through Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself said when you look at me you are looking at God. There is no other way to the Father except through me. So when we look at Jesus we see God. That is our measuring stick. There was no sin in Jesus and He doesn't command immoral acts.

Again, you are confusing morality with obedience to a written set of rules.

Isn't there an element of obedience with morality. If you believe that stealing is wrong then wont you obey the dont shop lift signs. Why are there dont shop lift signs. Why do they say obey the law or someone didn't obey the law. So doesn't secular morality have an element of obedience to it. Like obeying your conscience.

Following Jesus isn't just about obedience. Its about making a wise choice. Choose death or choose life.

The same can be said of many religions that you don't follow.

This is where you have to go into comparative religion and look at each religion. This is a big topic in itself. But it can be shown that many other religions are either false or not really a religion but more a philosophy of life or a mystical belief. But Christianity can be supported with historical evidence. It then comes down to whether you believe the claims of Jesus or not. Mohammad was a man and this is acknowledged. He acknowledges Jesus. Islam more or less looks to the same old testament God. But then they change things later. This came along well after Jesus. You have to use logic and reason once again to see if the claims each religion makes stand up.
With all of the different religions, how can I know which one is correct?

How do you know that what is written is actually moral?

Because God Himself says that He is without sin and no sin comes from God. He is the giver of the law and He is the only worthy judge. If you look at the teachings of Jesus there are no bad things in there. It is all morally good and about doing the right thing by God and others. Jesus said the whole law can be summed up in two commandments.

Matthew 22:37-40, "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

He later breaks that down to even one commandment in which the entire law or all morals are based on.
Galatians 5:14
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

So I think thats pretty clear and straight forward. There is no evil or immorality in these laws. So I think we can be pretty confident that what Jesus was saying was very moral.

But as I said before its not just about doing the right thing. Its also about the battle of good and evil. We are all sinners and we have an evil nature as well. So even though we may know what is good we can have a tendency to do bad. I have explained this before with how people can corrupt and compromise things through selfish motives and power, greed and money. We know of the things we should be doing but we dont do them anyway. But Jesus can transform a person and defeat the evil side of us. Sin cannot reign in us when Jesus is in our hearts. Jesus defeated the power of sin and death when He was crucified for our sins and rose again fro death.

Then you can't claim that the Bible is moral nor that God is moral.

God is all knowing. He is our Creator and the creator of this world and all things. He is the maker of all laws. So He knows better than anyone about what is best and what is good for us.

I personally believe that there is wisdom in Gods laws. They are not just there to make us do the right thing. Doing Gods will brings benefits. It will give us the best possible life. It makes sense as it will avoid a lot of suffering and consequences because God is the expert at knowing whats best. Its like God made the law of not committing adultery. Now society believes its OK to have affairs and marriages breakdown all the time. As a consequence there is a lot of bad consequences. Kids get traumatized, people get depressed and end up with emotional problems, it costs society and individuals a lot of money. It divides families and societies.

But still people think its no big deal and have no respect for the laws of marriage and other things like sexual relationships in general being regarded as a casual thing. So there are many consequences just for this area in itself let alone all the other morals that God wants us to follow. So it makes sense to follow these morals. The bible says the wages of sin is death but along the way there are a lot of harm done before. On our own strength we cannot beat sin. But with Jesus we are born again and have the power to overcome temptations and lead a moral life without sin. As we grow in God we should sin less and become more like Jesus.

 

[ananda]

Actually, no it isn't.

Compassion is a human feeling and if you base morality on compassion you base it on subjective feelings with no more weight than aggression or desire.

Morality, in order to be more than just the idolising of the human, has to be based on something transcendent. Otherwise its just selective whim.

Compassion appears in other species besides humans.

 

[Inkfingers]

Compassion appears in other species besides humans.

And that disproves what I said how exactly?

 

[ananda]

And that disproves what I said how exactly?

It seemed to me that you were implying that compassion was only a human trait. I say it is "transcendent", and occurs among multiple species.

 

[Inkfingers]

It seemed to me that you were implying that compassion was only a human trait. I say it is "transcendent", and occurs among multiple species.

That isn't what transcendent means.

It means above and beyond us.

When we make compassion (or any human feeling) the basis for morality, we make an idol of humans and build morality on shifting sand (as who we feel compassion for is prone to change on a whim like all emotions are).

Getting people to think compassion or empathy are the basis of morals is a really nifty trick by the relativists.....but its also poison.

Make the human heart the judge of morals and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

[ananda]

That isn't what transcendent means.

It means above and beyond us.

When we make compassion (or any human feeling) the basis for morality, we make an idol of humans and build morality on shifting sand (as who we feel compassion for is prone to change on a whim like all emotions are).

Getting people to think compassion or empathy are the basis of morals is a really nifty trick by the relativists.....but its also poison.

Make the human heart the judge of morals and you have a recipe for disaster.

I was using the word "transcendent" in the sense that compassion transcends one species.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your under estimating peoples ability to think and reason and to see benefits and results. If someone gets good benefits from doing something isn't that a good reason.

That to me is better than just relying on human judgment which has been shown to get it wrong on many occasions. They may also get it right sometimes but its a hit and miss proposition..

No thats no being realistic. The moral of honoring your mother and father is correct. That is a good moral and makes sense. It shows respect and honor. But like with any moral there are exceptions where a greater good or bad can override things. Such as with killing. The moral is dont kill. But if you and your family are being attacked and you life is threatened then there is a justified reason for when you happen to kill. It doesn't change the moral to not kill. It just adds an exception or valid justification for that moral.

So if you have parents that are doing a greater wrong and committing a immoral act then that changes things. You are totally justified because there is a greater immoral act being injected into that situation. But still depending on what it is a person may still honor their parents even if they do wrong towards them. They can forgive and understand the circumstances. But if it is a great wrong then it is totally justified under that moral to take another position. You see you underestimate the thought and reasoning that someone can have. You also make things to black and whit and nothing in between. You are mistaking the valid justifications with a moral from another greater moral act being done that has to be considered and over rides it. Otherwise we are then not honoring the other morals that are involved.

So when you or someone else tells me I am wrong with what I believe are you saying you know the truth. How do you know that what you believe is moral is corect and true.

This is the crux of the matter about subjective and objective morality. You say it comes down to a persons view. Thats fair enough but then that position is taken to then decide what we should actually do in society as being right or wrong. We live by these things all the time. So who decides what right and whats wrong.

Whereas objective morality says that there are moral truths. Killing is wrong no matter what. Then there are many ways we can allow killing for example. It is clear when we break them and we have a clear standard to judge by.

We know that humans are fallible and get things wrong so this is not a good standard to go by. Whether its God or some other method it makes sense to have an independent guide that can is all knowing and infallible that can be the judge of what is right and wrong.

Yet we have seen the majority of people make bad decisions time and time again. They are legalizing pot in many states and it may not be long before its legal everywhere. Is this based on the good for all or on some people who have the power to influence decision makers. Is this the result of justifications that make a good argument based on the views of some or a majority. The majority view being good is often wrong because its not always based on the truth. There are many influencing factors that cause people to think they are doing good when they dont know all the facts or dont want to know all the facts or the truth of the matter. Humans get swayed and corrupted. They manipulate things and make compromises which end up taking away from what is good. Who ever can make the best argument for something to be good will have their way.

Some states in the US and other countries have the death penalty. They think they are right and doing good. Some allowed smoking in the past and thought it was good. The coalition of the willing thought they were doing good and bringing peace and democracy to Iraqi and Afghanistan. The governments think they are doing good when they pass laws. But we know they are often wrong by the suffering created in societies. What humans think is the truth and good is different to what God thinks. Humans can think they are being good but it often leads to bad consequences. So even when there is a consensus of opinion that is no guarantee of it being good. But what is more relevant is that subjective morality invites all those influences that cause people to get it wrong. Objective morality takes that all away because its clear what is right and what is wrong.

It just makes sense to have a moral truth. If there is disagreement about morality or if there are many views all saying that theirs is what morals are all about then it makes sense to have a clear set of morals. That way we know where we stand.

Yes just like money and power can be used to manipulate the truth and what is right and wrong so can religion. But that doesn't take away from the fact that in among all that is a moral truth. Religion is man made and can be used to do wrong. In fact it is an even greater way to fool people because it has the disguise of good.



Christianity should be different to this worlds thinking. I have just gone through what I believe is worldly views on truth and peace and doing good. Things like humanity and politically correct views are deceptive and promote world views that actually do harm in the end. They are a bit like religion in that they come across as being all good but actually have a hidden agenda. The system has bad components with it such as commercialism, materialism and other political policies like rights that create disharmony and a situation that causes conflicts and a breakdown in societies. This is the world view of what is good and right.

A christian needs to be separate from this. So things that secular society thinks are acceptable should be unacceptable to Christians. Things like marriage and relationships, attitudes to money, selfish desires, worldly ambitions, sexuality, abortion should be different to what secular society thinks is OK. We should be sacrificing our lives for helping others and not building our own selfish empires in this world. As the bible says anyone who loves their life in this world will lose it and anyone who hates this life will gain eternal life. So there should be a pretty big difference and it should be clear. Some want the best of both worlds and others live a lie. They are like those who build their house on shaky foundations. You should be able to tell a Christian by the fruits they bear. By the good deeds they do.

]Your under estimating peoples ability to think and reason and to see benefits and results. If someone gets good benefits from doing something isn't that a good reason

By that rationale, if a moral choice benefits someone enough, but contradicts god's morality... It's still a good choice. Likewise, if someone obeys god's morality and it never benefits them...they're justified in disobeying. Is that really what you think?

That to me is better than just relying on human judgment which has been shown to get it wrong on many occasions. They may also get it right sometimes but its a hit and miss proposition.

Those who believe that they follow the morality of god make mistakes by their own admission just as often as those with their own morality. I don't see any benefit other than being able to scapegoat god when you make a poor choice or hold an unpopular opinion. That may be a benefit...but it's very dishonest.

The moral of honoring your mother and father is correct. That is a good moral and makes sense.

How do you know it's correct? Because god says so? All that proves is that god says it's correct. Sure, you can claim god is always right... but that's just your opinion. You have no way of knowing that god is always right. So in the end...you have no way of knowing if that moral standard is "correct". It's just your opinion (which you got from someone else).

But like with any moral... ...not honoring the other morals involved.

I didn't want to pull the entire quote...but everything you wrote between the beginning and end of these sentences here is a description of subjective morality...not objective morality. You're describing people deciding for themselves what is right and wrong without appealing to some objective moral standard. You talk about deciding which is the greater good or lesser evil...god doesn't allow for those things. God didn't write the ten commandments with a list of exceptions and all sins are equal in his eyes. It's objective morality that paints everything in black and white...it's subjective morality that recognizes most moral choices aren't that simple. It's nice to see you argue for my side once though lol.

So when you or someone else tells me I am wrong with what I believe are you saying you know the truth.

I explained about different types of facts in my last post...but I'll try again. 2+2=4 is a fact. It's not subjective. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it....it's still a fact. I can prove it to you, thereby demonstrating its truth. "Abortion is wrong."...that's an opinion. You may agree or disagree. It cannot be proven. We can still debate it...discuss why we think it's wrong or right... but it's not a "truth". The only point the debate serves is to get others to see your way.

So who decides what right and whats wrong

Generally speaking, the majority does...as long as it doesn't harm the minority. Generally, but not always.

Whereas objective morality says that there are moral truths.

Right...it just can't prove they exist...or even explain them. That makes these "truths" look suspiciously like opinions. I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong....you say that killing is wrong is a moral truth. Demonstrate it....tell me why killing is wrong.

Whether its God or some other method it makes sense to have an independent guide that can is all knowing and infallible that can be the judge of what is right and wrong.

Even those who claim to follow an independent moral guide make poor moral choices. I see no benefit, other than the ability to deny responsibility for holding unpopular moral opinions...like saying gay people shouldn't marry. By saying that it's god's morality and they just follow it, they get to deny responsibility for holding that opinion. It's dishonest.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We know that humans are fallible and get things wrong so this is not a good standard to go by. Whether its God or some other method it makes sense to have an independent guide that can is all knowing and infallible that can be the judge of what is right and wrong. Then we have a much better chance of doing the right thing and not ending up with all the bad consequences of our poor judgements.

Yet we have seen the majority of people make bad decisions time and time again. They are legalizing pot in many states and it may not be long before its legal everywhere. Is this based on the good for all or on some people who have the power to influence decision makers. Is this the result of justifications that make a good argument based on the views of some or a majority. The majority view being good is often wrong because its not always based on the truth. There are many influencing factors that cause people to think they are doing good when they dont know all the facts or dont want to know all the facts or the truth of the matter. Humans get swayed and corrupted. They manipulate things and make compromises which end up taking away from what is good. Who ever can make the best argument for something to be good will have their way.

Some states in the US and other countries have the death penalty. They think they are right and doing good. Some allowed smoking in the past and thought it was good. The coalition of the willing thought they were doing good and bringing peace and democracy to Iraqi and Afghanistan. The governments think they are doing good when they pass laws. But we know they are often wrong by the suffering created in societies. What humans think is the truth and good is different to what God thinks. Humans can think they are being good but it often leads to bad consequences. So even when there is a consensus of opinion that is no guarantee of it being good. But what is more relevant is that subjective morality invites all those influences that cause people to get it wrong. Objective morality takes that all away because its clear what is right and what is wrong.

It just makes sense to have a moral truth. If there is disagreement about morality or if there are many views all saying that theirs is what morals are all about then it makes sense to have a clear set of morals. That way we know where we stand.

Yes just like money and power can be used to manipulate the truth and what is right and wrong so can religion. But that doesn't take away from the fact that in among all that is a moral truth. Religion is man made and can be used to do wrong. In fact it is an even greater way to fool people because it has the disguise of good.



Christianity should be different to this worlds thinking. I have just gone through what I believe is worldly views on truth and peace and doing good. Things like humanity and politically correct views are deceptive and promote world views that actually do harm in the end. They are a bit like religion in that they come across as being all good but actually have a hidden agenda. The system has bad components with it such as commercialism, materialism and other political policies like rights that create disharmony and a situation that causes conflicts and a breakdown in societies. This is the world view of what is good and right.

A christian needs to be separate from this. So things that secular society thinks are acceptable should be unacceptable to Christians. Things like marriage and relationships, attitudes to money, selfish desires, worldly ambitions, sexuality, abortion should be different to what secular society thinks is OK. We should be sacrificing our lives for helping others and not building our own selfish empires in this world. As the bible says anyone who loves their life in this world will lose it and anyone who hates this life will gain eternal life. So there should be a pretty big difference and it should be clear. Some want the best of both worlds and others live a lie. They are like those who build their house on shaky foundations. You should be able to tell a Christian by the fruits they bear. By the good deeds they do.

But what is more relevant is that subjective morality invites all those influences that cause people to get it wrong. Objective morality takes that all away because its clear what is right and what is wrong.

You make it sound like we have a choice in the matter. Objective vs subjective morality isn't a matter of choice...it's a matter of describing how morality works. It's a matter of describing how morality appears to be.

If objective morality takes away all the "negative" moral opinions and leaves a clear view of right and wrong in the world...then it's clear objective morality doesn't describe how morality works. Even amongst those who believe in objective morality, there is a wide difference of opinion on what is factually correct and incorrect. Whether or not people claim to be living according to some objective moral standard, it appears as if they simply choose their morals for themselves. That means subjective morality better describes how morality works in reality.

t just makes sense to have a moral truth. If there is disagreement about morality or if there are many views all saying that theirs is what morals are all about then it makes sense to have a clear set of morals. That way we know where we stand.

It may make sense to you, it doesn't to me. I don't need someone else to tell me "where i stand ...I know where i stand. If I want to know where someone else stands, I need only ask them or watch their behavior. It's not that hard.

Religion is man made and can be used to do wrong. In fact it is an even greater way to fool people because it has the disguise of good.

I agree with this.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Discussions like this thread are extremely convoluted. I think that that is because there is no agreed upon definition of "morality".

Whenever I see or hear "morality" I think "The way things ought to be". Morality is the way that things ought to be. Not the way that people think things ought to be. The way that things ought to be. Not the way things are. Not the way that things can be. Not the way that people want things to be. The way that things ought to be.

If there is no such thing as the way that things ought to be, then at best we can have people's opinions about the way that things ought to be.

I used to think that it is futile to think and talk about the way things ought to be without first limiting the analysis to what is possible--to the way that things can be. But even if someone can prove that things can only be certain ways that does not mean that things ought to be that way. If Sam Harris says that neuroscience shows that free will is an illusion and that we have no control over our thoughts and actions, one could reply, "Even if that is true, it does not necessarily mean that it is the way that things ought to be".

Of course, we limit our thinking about "ought to be" to human behavior. Nobody says that the moon ought to be a cube instead of spherical.

Can "the way things ought to be" exist without God? I do not know--I have never thought about it. Maybe I will flip a coin.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

No coin toss needed.

If God created everything then no matter what corresponds to the word "morality", God created it.

Therefore, if God created everything then without God there cannot be "morality", no matter how the word is defined or what it refers to.

If God did not create "morality", then who or what did create "morality"?

And if "morality" was created by evolution, by humans, etc. then that means that it could be destroyed.

Of course, even if God created "morality" it could be destroyed. Destroyed by God, at least.

Even if we define "morality" as, say, what is right and wrong, it presents problems. Is it right that "morality" is what is right and wrong? What if it is wrong that "morality" is what is right and wrong? What if it is instead right that "morality" is a turtle's shell?

What if nothing is right? What if nothing is the way that things ought to be? I do not think that that is any kind of nihilism. The possibility that something could appear that is right still exists.

And the more that I think about it, we limit our analysis of "ought to be" to less than mere human behavior. The spelling of the word "dog" is human behavior, but nobody argues that the spelling ought to be different like people argue, say, that people ought to have property rights.

It is still not clear what this "morality" is or what is its nature. Maybe we are not supposed to know. Maybe we are not supposed to be able to definitively answer the question that this thread asks.

But if we are not supposed to know, then that itself is a statement about right, wrong, ought to be, etc.



Maybe a coin toss is needed after all.