Christians do not "own" morality

[alien444]

The idea of an objective moral code existing as the result of the Abrahamic God is logically unsound. There is no moral or ethical action that is exclusive to Christians. How do I know what is moral without the direction of the objective moral arbiter? How do children who are not indoctrinated by religion capable of recognizing correct moral choices.

Some atheists argue for a scientifically based objective morality, and the argument is strong, but I still see morality as somewhat subjective (and unfortunately) relative. Absolute morality does not leave room for the complexity of the human experience. The fundamental moral principles of Christian morality should be absolute If they're are the product of an objective moral arbiter. For example, Should you truly "love your neighbor" under all possible circumstances? What If your neighbor rapes and murders your closest loved one, child, or spouse? Does anyone here seriously believe that they could love someone under this circumstance. Perhaps the most compassionate among us could forgive this person, but love is entirely different. I have to say if you could love someone who raped or murdered your child, then you might be a sociopath. I am sure some are thinking "that is not what Jesus meant" and can cite a bible verse to support it, but if there are exceptions or conditions, then it is not an absolute moral principle. The same applies to the question--Could you truly "do unto others as you wish them to do unto you" under all possible circumstances? What about high functioning psychopaths who enjoy pain and debasement. Both of these moral principles existed thousands of years before the establishment of Christianity and can be found in the writings of Buddha and Confucius. They are excellent moral principles and are universally found in civilization but are not absolute, and therefore, cannot be absolutely objective. Morality must contain an element of subjectivity to allow for the contradictions of reality. Human morality is a complicated amalgamation of evolutionary and social factors. Religion, as our first attempt at explaining the universe, naturally seeks to explain morality as well. However, as religion has failed to adequately explain the workings of the universe, it has naturally failed to explain the workings of biology and human nature.

 

[Strathos]

This thread, or some variation of it, has been made at least hundreds of times now, just FYI.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This thread, or some variation of it, has been made at least hundreds of times now, just FYI.

Hey Strathos,

He's fairly new to the forums, so let's not rain on his parade just yet.

 

[alien444]

Hey Strathos,

He's fairly new to the forums, so let's not rain on his parade just yet.

Yeah I figured I wasn't breaking new ground here. Can you give me an example of an absolute moral principle that does not contain an exception under ANY circumstance. You might surprise me. ("You should not commit blasphemy against God will not suffice")

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.
Luke 10:27

 

[alien444]

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.
Luke 10:27

The first part has exceptions for all those who believe in different gods or none at all, and the second part is covered in the OP.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The first part has no exceptions. The second part answers your question in the OP in the affirmative.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Yeah I figured I wasn't breaking new ground here. Can you give me an example of an absolute moral principle that does not contain an exception under ANY circumstance. You might surprise me. ("You should not commit blasphemy against God will not suffice")

I remember seeing a talk by Richard Carrier where he was explaining his take on ethics. He had an axiom that he said served as a basis for multiple ethical systems, something to the effect of "you ought to do what you would want to do if you were in possession of all relevant facts and reasoning properly." I haven't be able to find an exception to that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah I figured I wasn't breaking new ground here. Can you give me an example of an absolute moral principle that does not contain an exception under ANY circumstance. You might surprise me. ("You should not commit blasphemy against God will not suffice")

Uh......the 1st commandment?

Actually, the trick here is to understand that your concept of the 'absolute' may be different than another person's idea of absolute. Absolute is one of those 'hyperbolic' words that get bandied about as if we truly know what they are. Kind of like the concepts of 'perfect,' or 'god', or.......'spaghetti squash.'

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Yeah I figured I wasn't breaking new ground here. Can you give me an example of an absolute moral principle that does not contain an exception under ANY circumstance. You might surprise me. ("You should not commit blasphemy against God will not suffice")

I think that the main issue here isn't that similar threads to the OP have appeared on the forums here before. It's that ethical philosophy is complicated.

When you say that you want people to list an absolute moral principle that can't be violated under any circumstances, you're asking a fundamentally normative ethical question (ie., "Is there any act that is always right or always wrong, without exception?"). The problem is, this is a board where people from several religions (and individuals like myself, with no particular religious beliefs) are allowed to post in debate with one another. There are going to be metaethical concerns.

Ultimately, anyone who tries to answer your OP by saying that Christianity does require the existence of God is probably going to be providing an answer to a question other than the one you asked. You're asking whether it's necessary to believe in the Christian God to accept that morality exists. They might believe that moral behavior is best defined as "what God wants you to do", and in that case, it absolutely is. I would argue that morality is something other than that, but then, we're getting into some debates that are too complicated to ultimately come to a conclusion. That's what normally happens with posts like this. People do a truly horrifying amount of talking around each other.

 

[alien444]

I think that the main issue here isn't that similar threads to the OP have appeared on the forums here before. It's that ethical philosophy is complicated.

When you say that you want people to list an absolute moral principle that can't be violated under any circumstances, you're asking a fundamentally normative ethical question (ie., "Is there any act that is always right or always wrong, without exception?"). The problem is, this is a board where people from several religions (and individuals like myself, with no particular religious beliefs) are allowed to post in debate with one another. There are going to be metaethical concerns.

Ultimately, anyone who tries to answer your OP by saying that Christianity does require the existence of God is probably going to be providing an answer to a question other than the one you asked. You're asking whether it's necessary to believe in the Christian God to accept that morality exists. They might believe that moral behavior is best defined as "what God wants you to do", and in that case, it absolutely is. I would argue that morality is something other than that, but then, we're getting into some debates that are too complicated to ultimately come to a conclusion. That's what normally happens with posts like this. People do a truly horrifying amount of talking around each other.

I agree that searching for truths in ethics and morality is an extremely complicated subject (and that is kind of my point), however, the question that I am asking is actually quite simple. It is primarily a response to recent apologists like William Lane Craig who say that objective morality cannot exist without God (and it is stated by him as clearly as that). My answer is that there is no "objective" or "absolute" morality regardless of the existence of a God. It is quite easy to affirm or negate. If a "real world" moral principle can be stated without exceptions under any "real world" circumstance then "objective" "absolute" morality exists.

 

[quatona]

I remember seeing a talk by Richard Carrier where he was explaining his take on ethics. He had an axiom that he said served as a basis for multiple ethical systems, something to the effect of "you ought to do what you would want to do if you were in possession of all relevant facts and reasoning properly." I haven't be able to find an exception to that.

Actually, I don´t think that this is a moral preceipt or principle but rather a meta-moral maxime (as is Kant´s imperative).
The more abstract we become the closer we get to a tautology ("Morality is doing the right thing.")

 

[alien444]

The first part has no exceptions. The second part answers your question in the OP in the affirmative.

So if it answers it in the affirmative, then you are saying that you should (or even could) love someone who rapes and murders your child or spouse?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I agree that searching for truths in ethics and morality is an extremely complicated subject (and that is kind of my point), however, the question that I am asking is actually quite simple. It is primarily a response to recent apologists like William Lane Craig who say that objective morality cannot exist without God (and it is stated by him as clearly as that). My answer is that there is no "objective" or "absolute" morality regardless of the existence of a God. It is quite easy to affirm or negate. If a "real world" moral principle can be stated without exceptions under any "real world" circumstance then "objective" "absolute" morality exists.

I have to admit that I don't honestly know that much about William Lane Craig's moral arguments. That really doesn't sound like it's all that good of a response, though. Using his argument, the existence of a God might necessitate morality ("moral" might mean something like "serving the ends God intends for it"), and if it did, he would absolutely be right within his metaethical frame. I don't like that frame, because it requires without examining its primary point, but it might be the one that he's using.

 

[alien444]

Uh......the 1st commandment?

Actually, the trick here is to understand that your concept of the 'absolute' may be different than another person's idea of absolute. Absolute is one of those 'hyperbolic' words that get bandied about as if we truly know what they are. Kind of like the concepts of 'perfect,' or 'god', or.......'spaghetti squash.'

Exactly. Relativism. This post is less directed to those who wish to discuss the finer points of Kant, and more to the popular idea in Christian Apologetics that absolute morality can only exist with an objective moral arbiter (i.e. God).

 

[quatona]

Morality must contain an element of subjectivity to allow for the contradictions of reality.

I´m not sure I agree with this line of reasoning.
Firstly, I don´t know what you mean by "contradictions of reality" (how is reality contradictory?).
Assuming that you mean something to the effect of "complexity of reality":
objective morality could also be complex quite fine. E.g. if for every indidividual situation there would be an objectively right/good thing to do, objectivity and complexity would be perfectly reconcilable.

(Not that I believe in "objective morality", mind you. I don´t even know what would be required for morality to be "objective", and what - in case there were such - it would be important for. I just can´t seem to follow your argument).

 

[alien444]

I´m not sure I agree with this line of reasoning.
Firstly, I don´t know what you mean by "contradictions of reality" (how is reality contradictory?).
Assuming that you mean something to the effect of "complexity of reality":
objective morality could also be complex quite fine. E.g. if for every indidividual situation there would be an objectively right/good thing to do, objectivity and complexity would be perfectly reconcilable.

(Not that I believe in "objective morality", mind you. I don´t even know what would be required for morality to be "objective", and what - in case there were such - it would be important for. I just can´t seem to follow your argument).

I think you may be over-thinking it and perhaps I haven't qualified my statements well enough.

If you clearly break a law and stand before a judge (who created all laws). It doesn't matter how you rationalize your choice or how you feel subjectively about the validity of the law, the judge is the objective arbiter of the law and will determine your guilt based on his/her subjective reason for creation of the law. Is this not how most Christians (excepting perhaps theologians) think of morality? It is certainly the way all Christians I have met think of morality.

I think most of you who have posted agree that this a simplistic, if not reductionist view of morality.

You're acting as if I created this this term "absolute morality" on this post.

 

[quatona]

I think you may be over-thinking it

Well, maybe you should give the degree of depth of thought you find appropriate - along with your questions.

If you clearly break a law and stand before a judge (who created all laws). It doesn't matter how you rationalize your choice or how you feel subjectively about the validity of the law, the judge is the objective arbiter of the law and will determine your guilt based on his/her subjective reason for creation of the law. Is this not how most Christians (excepting perhaps theologians) think of morality? It is certainly the way all Christians I have met think of morality.

Firstly, I am not a Christian, so I am not reading your post like a Christian would.
Secondly, even if I agree with your conclusions I will put the line of reasoning that leads you there to scrutinity.
Thirdly, I have seen a lot of different ideas concerning this topic coming from Christians.


But, if I understand you correctly, you would like Christians to defend the very notion of morality that you have described above. Is that right?

You're acting as if I created this this term "absolute morality" on this post.

I for one act as if you started a thread and introduced the terms "absolute morality" and "objective morality", and I act as if you occasionally conflate the two.

 

[alien444]

Well, maybe you should give the degree of depth of thought you find appropriate - along with your questions.




Firstly, I am not a Christian, so I am not reading your post like a Christian would.

Ah, I see. I think I have found the source of our confusion. Since I am posting on a site called "Christian Forums" I thought it obvious that I was directing my post to Christians.


Secondly, even if I agree with your conclusions I will put the line of reasoning that leads you there to scrutinity.

Fine, but I am less interested in what you have to say than Christians on this forum. No offense.

Thirdly, I have seen a lot of different ideas concerning this topic coming from Christians.

Beside the occasional theologian I have not, that is why I am asking.


But, if I understand you correctly, you would like Christians to defend the very notion of morality that you have described above. Is that right?

I described it, but did not invent the notion of objective absolute morality.


I for one act as if you started a thread and introduced the terms "absolute morality" and "objective morality"

And yes, they can be examined more closely, but I am using the terms in the way that they are very, very often used to speak of morality.

and I act as if you occasionally conflate the two.

I consciously conflate the two, because from the view of morality that I am questioning they are interchangeable. You cannot have objective morality unless it is absolute and you can not have absolute morality unless it is objective.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm an atheist, and I'd argue for a reason (rather than science) based universal morality. I think there are moral truths, and it isn't just opinion.

Yeah I figured I wasn't breaking new ground here. Can you give me an example of an absolute moral principle that does not contain an exception under ANY circumstance. You might surprise me. ("You should not commit blasphemy against God will not suffice")

Respect the will of all people equally. (ie: Don't kill people, because they don't want to be killed).