Do atheists believe in objective morality?

[SithDoughnut]

I said this earlier, but there were no decent responses so I'll say it again in case you missed it or something.

According to Theodore Schick, Jr., Professor of Philosophy and secular humanist; subjective moral values fail to meet the criteria of adequacy for ethical theories for 3 reasons. It sanctions obviously immoral acts,

How do you decide which acts are immoral? And in what way are immoral acts sanctioned? This position is far too binary.

it implies that people are morally infallible

No it doesn't. The words fallible and infallible imply an objective standard against which someone can be wrong. Subjective morality does not imply that people are morally infallible, it removes the whole fallible/infallible idea entirely. You're not objectively wrong, but you're also not objectively right. You're not objectively anything.

and it denies that there are substantive moral disputes.

What? Moral disputes are the proof of subjective morality. Morality is based within the brain, and only within the brain. If morality was objective, we'd all agree.

Prominent atheist and ethicist, Walter Sinnott Armstrong realises that subjectivism is a failed theory and so argues for moral objectivity based on human flourishing

Which is a subjective criteria.

but when asked to defend his position he says, ' [William Lane] Craig still might ask, 'What’s immoral about causing serious harms to other people without justification?' But now it seems natural to answer, “It simply is. Objectively. Don’t you agree?”' And that's his answer. "It simply is." He cannot defend his foundation.

When asked "Why is [insert colour here] the best colour?", it is natural to answer "It simply is." There is rarely any reasoning. Does this make colour preferences objective? Just because you can't come up with or articulate that reasoning behind your choice, that doesn't make it objective.

Theists can.

You've just chosen to follow another subjective moral standard - God's. His morality is subjective as well, because people disagree with it. There is no further proof necessary. As the conscience and morality is entirely internalised within people, for it to be objective everyone must have exactly the same views. They don't, hence subjectivism. Morality works in exactly the same way as colour preference.

 

[LoooveLikeFire]

How do you decide which acts are immoral? And in what way are immoral acts sanctioned? This position is far too binary.

How do I define which acts are immoral? I believe in the Judeo-Christian God of the bible. He defines my moral values and has imprinted these moral values in all of us (Romans 2 - image of God in man).

In what way are these immoral acts sanctioned? I'm merely enunciating the consequences of a society governed by the anarchic and chaotic nature of moral subjectivism.

Attacking this position will be difficult for you as this is the criteria professional ethicists (such as Walter Sinnot Armstrong) use to determine which moral theories are viable. Neither of us are professional ethicists (inb4; I'm not committing the genetic fallacy because I'm not using this as an argument to invalidate your view; merely warning you of the burden of proof that awaits you).

No it doesn't. The words fallible and infallible imply an objective standard against which someone can be wrong. Subjective morality does not imply that people are morally infallible, it removes the whole fallible/infallible idea entirely.

Fallible implies that there is an objective foundation to align one with. However infallible does not; it means the opposite; that there is no objective foundation. The word infallible means to not make an error, and if there is no standard to compare one with, then one can never make an error; there is no right or wrong.

You're not objectively wrong, but you're also not objectively right. You're not objectively anything.

Quite right; I didn’t say it meant that. I said subjectivism meant that we are infallible.

What? Moral disputes are the proof of subjective morality.

The problem lies with your definitions of subjective and objective morality. I'll do my best to explain this clearly, but forgive me if it is a little confusing; after all I’m not infallible

We attempt to grasp the objective standard from our subjective perspective. That is to say that there is an element of subjectivism as we each come from different societies, families etc.

Now you might argue that it is precisely those things (Culture, family etc.) that determine what you think is right or wrong. However, this commits the genetic fallacy. Why? Because how the belief originates is irrelevant to the truth of the belief itself.

Morality is based within the brain, and only within the brain. If morality was objective, we'd all agree.

I’ll tell you what we would see if morality was objective; a world that would loosely follow a set of moral values (Such as do not murder) which can differ slightly from society to society; this is what I see.

Why this difference? We are fallen man, stained with sin. Our moral intuition is not infallible and there are areas of grey; but it is clear enough to guide us. Anything you could say against this; a parallel can be made with our senses.

Our 5 senses aren’t infallible (put a stick in a jar of water and the light refracts our image of it, making it appear bent; you think someone calls your name but it was just in your head etc.) but they are clear enough to trust and guide us.

Which is a subjective criteria.

No, you misunderstand. Sinnot-Armstrong is using human flourishing as an objective foundation. Even if everyone in the world thought that human flourishing was bad, it would still be good.

When asked "Why is [insert colour here] the best colour?", it is natural to answer "It simply is." There is rarely any reasoning. Does this make colour preferences objective? Just because you can't come up with or articulate that reasoning behind your choice, that doesn't make it objective.

I’m a little confused here so clarify for me next post yeah?

You've just chosen to follow another subjective moral standard - God's.

That is the Euthyphro dilemma which has already been well defended.

His morality is subjective as well, because people disagree with it. There is no further proof necessary. As the conscience and morality is entirely internalised within people, for it to be objective everyone must have exactly the same views. They don't, hence subjectivism. Morality works in exactly the same way as colour preference.

You must be really confused as to why there is even a debate if all the proof for subjectivism we need is the fact that two people disagree. Just to restate, that is not the definition.

If two people see the Egyptian Pyramids, the reality is the Egyptian Pyramids. The subjective nature of the Egyptian Pyramids is the thought patterns and processes that a person think of while viewing the reality. But those thought patterns/processes do not determine the Egyptian Pyramids.

Oh btw, I hope you realise that now you can't go using the problem of evil/suffering

 

[Nathan45]

professional ethicists

lol

 

[LoooveLikeFire]

Feel free to elaborate.

 

[SithDoughnut]

How do I define which acts are immoral? I believe in the Judeo-Christian God of the bible. He defines my moral values and has imprinted these moral values in all of us (Romans 2 - image of God in man).

It was more a general 'you'. The idea that subjective morality sanctions 'obviously' immoral actions does not logically work. Subjective does not mean 'anything goes'.

In what way are these immoral acts sanctioned? I'm merely enunciating the consequences of a society governed by the anarchic and chaotic nature of moral subjectivism.

Again, subjective does not mean 'anything goes'. Look it up if you think otherwise:

Subjective | Define Subjective at Dictionary.com

Attacking this position will be difficult for you as this is the criteria professional ethicists (such as Walter Sinnot Armstrong) use to determine which moral theories are viable. Neither of us are professional ethicists (inb4; I'm not committing the genetic fallacy because I'm not using this as an argument to invalidate your view; merely warning you of the burden of proof that awaits you).

The criteria used is the subjective opinion of a few 'professional ethicists'. Therefore, any conclusion they make from it will be subjective as well. Unless it can be demonstrated that the criteria is based upon entirely objective reasoning (for example, human flourishing is subjective, as it depends on what you view as flourishing), then you cannot draw objective claims from it.

Fallible implies that there is an objective foundation to align one with. However infallible does not; it means the opposite; that there is no objective foundation. The word infallible means to not make an error, and if there is no standard to compare one with, then one can never make an error; there is no right or wrong.

True, but infallible has the implication of always being right.

If we go entirely by your definition, then I see nothing wrong with saying people are infalliable in terms of morals. It's not an argument against subjective morality. The only way it would be an argument is if we include the aforementioned implication of always being right, in which case it is not true.

Quite right; I didn’t say it meant that. I said subjectivism meant that we are infallible.

By your definition (without the common implication), that is true, and not a problem. There is no evidence of an objective right and wrong.

The problem lies with your definitions of subjective and objective morality. I'll do my best to explain this clearly, but forgive me if it is a little confusing; after all I’m not infallible

We attempt to grasp the objective standard from our subjective perspective. That is to say that there is an element of subjectivism as we each come from different societies, families etc.

Do you have evidence of an objective standard? The most we do is try to create something close to an objective standard, for example laws and cultural expectations, but we don't try to grasp it, for there is nothing to grasp.

Now you might argue that it is precisely those things (Culture, family etc.) that determine what you think is right or wrong. However, this commits the genetic fallacy. Why? Because how the belief originates is irrelevant to the truth of the belief itself.

True, but we're not discussing the 'truth' of beliefs, we're discussing whether they are subjective or objective. This argument works under the premise that they are objective.

I’ll tell you what we would see if morality was objective; a world that would loosely follow a set of moral values (Such as do not murder) which can differ slightly from society to society; this is what I see.

How much are the moral values allowed to differ under this idea?

Why this difference? We are fallen man, stained with sin. Our moral intuition is not infallible and there are areas of grey; but it is clear enough to guide us. Anything you could say against this; a parallel can be made with our senses.

Our 5 senses aren’t infallible (put a stick in a jar of water and the light refracts our image of it, making it appear bent; you think someone calls your name but it was just in your head etc.) but they are clear enough to trust and guide us.

The analogy doesn't work, because senses are not like the conscience. You're still working under the inital premise that morals are somehow external to us, and that we are try to percieve them. I disagree with this premise.

No, you misunderstand. Sinnot-Armstrong is using human flourishing as an objective foundation. Even if everyone in the world thought that human flourishing was bad, it would still be good.

Why? Because you say so?

I’m a little confused here so clarify for me next post yeah?

Morality is a series of preferences on how we want to live our lives. Just as with preferences on colour or taste, morality is subjective and differs from one person to the next. There is no objective standard against which to judge colours, tastes, or morals.

That is the Euthyphro dilemma which has already been well defended.

Could you possibly point me in the direction of one of these defences?

You must be really confused as to why there is even a debate if all the proof for subjectivism we need is the fact that two people disagree. Just to restate, that is not the definition.

If two people see the Egyptian Pyramids, the reality is the Egyptian Pyramids. The subjective nature of the Egyptian Pyramids is the thought patterns and processes that a person think of while viewing the reality. But those thought patterns/processes do not determine the Egyptian Pyramids.

See the whole 'inital premise that morals are external' stuff that I wrote earlier in this post.

Oh btw, I hope you realise that now you can't go using the problem of evil/suffering

Maybe I can. I haven't decided to yet, but just claiming that I can't use these arguments does not mean I can't use them, unless you actually care to demonstrate why. I don't see how the evil/suffering issue can fit currently, but you never know. We need to deal with your premise first.

 

[LoooveLikeFire]

It was more a general 'you'. The idea that subjective morality sanctions 'obviously' immoral actions does not logically work. Subjective does not mean 'anything goes'.

Again, subjective does not mean 'anything goes'. Look it up if you think otherwise:

Subjective | Define Subjective at Dictionary.com

The criteria used is the subjective opinion of a few 'professional ethicists'. Therefore, any conclusion they make from it will be subjective as well. Unless it can be demonstrated that the criteria is based upon entirely objective reasoning (for example, human flourishing is subjective, as it depends on what you view as flourishing), then you cannot draw objective claims from it.

True, but infallible has the implication of always being right.

If we go entirely by your definition, then I see nothing wrong with saying people are infalliable in terms of morals. It's not an argument against subjective morality. The only way it would be an argument is if we include the aforementioned implication of always being right, in which case it is not true.

By your definition (without the common implication), that is true, and not a problem. There is no evidence of an objective right and wrong.

Do you have evidence of an objective standard? The most we do is try to create something close to an objective standard, for example laws and cultural expectations, but we don't try to grasp it, for there is nothing to grasp.

True, but we're not discussing the 'truth' of beliefs, we're discussing whether they are subjective or objective. This argument works under the premise that they are objective.

How much are the moral values allowed to differ under this idea?

The analogy doesn't work, because senses are not like the conscience. You're still working under the inital premise that morals are somehow external to us, and that we are try to percieve them. I disagree with this premise.

Why? Because you say so?

Morality is a series of preferences on how we want to live our lives. Just as with preferences on colour or taste, morality is subjective and differs from one person to the next. There is no objective standard against which to judge colours, tastes, or morals.

Could you possibly point me in the direction of one of these defences?

See the whole 'inital premise that morals are external' stuff that I wrote earlier in this post.

Maybe I can. I haven't decided to yet, but just claiming that I can't use these arguments does not mean I can't use them, unless you actually care to demonstrate why. I don't see how the evil/suffering issue can fit currently, but you never know. We need to deal with your premise first.

I have a lot to say about this, but I'm getting pretty tired so my response might be a bit brief. However I'll leave you with the argument that I was defending, the definitions of the words that I was using and just some final thoughts about the important things you mentioned.

This is the argument that I am defending.

1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2) Objective moral values and duties do exist. *
3) Therefore, God exists.

Now to clarify what I mean by objective and subjective. By “objective” I mean that what is right or wrong is independent of people’s opinions. By “subjective” I mean what is right or wrong is dependent on people’s opinions.

So, when I use the term “subjectivism”, I go by the definition that if I think something is morally right, then that makes it morally right. However it’s important to note that I’m not saying that I don’t have a subjective judgment of what is morally right. I do. My judgment is just as subjective as the next persons.

Anyways, here’s the definition I was using for the word "infallible" - incapable of failure or error - Wordnetweb; which is the first result in Google definitions. So from that definition, it follows that subjectivism leads to people who are morally infallible or capable of error. If they were capable of error, then there is an objective right and wrong.

Here is a link to the theistic response to the Euthyphro dilemma: Reasonable Faith: Question 44 - Euthyphro Dilemma


And finally a response to my last comment about how you can no longer use the problem of evil. How can you define evil? You can’t define it; you can merely give an opinion about it. But a subjective opinion is not a definition for definition by its very nature is a universal term from which we draw a universal meaning. While my opinion isn’t an objective truth just a subjective opinion beside yours, I have an objective reference point to and try and align myself with. But under your view, you are just aligning yourself with other equally subjective beliefs (culture/society, family etc).

You may say that your opinion (or your society’s opinion) on what is evil is all you need to form an argument, but how is that possible on subjectivism? How do we have an argument when we are merely exchanging opinions, both equally right and wrong at the same time? Sure they are different, but there is no reason for me to adopt your view if my view is equally right. Subjective moral values make moral disputes redundant. Tbh, I’m not flexible enough for such moral gymnastics.

Subjectivism also makes moral progress impossible. I would say that after the Holocaust, Germany’s grasp of what is morally right and wrong improved. However you couldn’t say it did, because to infer that they have progressed assumes that there exists some standard or reference point to progress from/to. If they were just as right during the holocaust as they are now, after it, then it’s just moral change, not moral progress. Now you may agree with this, but I’m actually sad atm, thinking about the consequences of a life lived under such a theory.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I have a lot to say about this, but I'm getting pretty tired so my response might be a bit brief. However I'll leave you with the argument that I was defending, the definitions of the words that I was using and just some final thoughts about the important things you mentioned.

This is the argument that I am defending.

1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2) Objective moral values and duties do exist. *
3) Therefore, God exists.

I can understand #1, but you still need to prove #2.

<snip - I agree with all of what I cut out>

Here is a link to the theistic response to the Euthyphro dilemma: Reasonable Faith: Question 44 - Euthyphro Dilemma

Actually, the argument suggests just answers the dilemma by saying that Horn A (Good is good because God says so) is correct. God's nature is good and God's nature is part of God, and therefore it's good because God's nature says so. It doesn't work because it first claims that God's nature is part of God, and then it tries to simultaneously treat God's nature as separate. It can't be both part of God and not part of God. Or maybe it can, but you'd have to define how God's nature works first.

Personally, I don't see how it is a dilemma in the first place.

And finally a response to my last comment about how you can no longer use the problem of evil. How can you define evil?

By whatever God says is evil. Don't forget that the problem of evil assumes that God exists, so therefore an objective standard exists.

While my opinion isn&#8217;t an objective truth just a subjective opinion beside yours, I have an objective reference point to and try and align myself with. But under your view, you are just aligning yourself with other equally subjective beliefs (culture/society, family etc).

Why is God's opinion objective?

You may say that your opinion (or your society&#8217;s opinion) on what is evil is all you need to form an argument, but how is that possible on subjectivism? How do we have an argument when we are merely exchanging opinions, both equally right and wrong at the same time?

Because subjective beliefs are still beliefs. I may not have an objective source for them, but I still think they're right.

Sure they are different, but there is no reason for me to adopt your view if my view is equally right. Subjective moral values make moral disputes redundant. Tbh, I&#8217;m not flexible enough for such moral gymnastics.

Only because you make things more complicated than they need to be. Society works on an agreed set of subjective beliefs. They're as close to objective as we can get, so we generally hold them up as something similar to objective morals. Subjectivism doesn't mean thinking that everything is neither right nor wrong, it means that you just recognise that they're personal opinions, and because everyone has these personal opinions, and no one has anything better, we're free to argue. There are no facts, but we have to work with something, so we work with opinions.

Subjectivism also makes moral progress impossible. I would say that after the Holocaust, Germany&#8217;s grasp of what is morally right and wrong improved. However you couldn&#8217;t say it did, because to infer that they have progressed assumes that there exists some standard or reference point to progress from/to. If they were just as right during the holocaust as they are now, after it, then it&#8217;s just moral change, not moral progress.

Moral change from an objective viewpoint (i.e. no objective right or wrong), moral progress from my subjective viewpoint (i.e. my subjective opinion of right or wrong). It's both.

Now you may agree with this, but I&#8217;m actually sad atm, thinking about the consequences of a life lived under such a theory.

Only because you don't understand it, and because you assume that objective morality is better. Given the objective moral code you are supporting, I much prefer subjectivism; God's moral law is not something I wish to live under, because I view parts of it as wrong and evil.

 

[JGG]

I said this earlier, but there were no decent responses so I'll say it again in case you missed it or something.

According to Theodore Schick, Jr., Professor of Philosophy and secular humanist; subjective moral values fail to meet the criteria of adequacy for ethical theories for 3 reasons. It sanctions obviously immoral acts, it implies that people are morally infallible and it denies that there are substantive moral disputes.

Prominent atheist and ethicist, Walter Sinnott Armstrong realises that subjectivism is a failed theory and so argues for moral objectivity based on human flourishing but when asked to defend his position he says, ' [William Lane] Craig still might ask, 'What&#8217;s immoral about causing serious harms to other people without justification?' But now it seems natural to answer, &#8220;It simply is. Objectively. Don&#8217;t you agree?&#8221;'

And that's his answer. "It simply is." He cannot defend his foundation.

Theists can.

inb4; Please don't throw the Euthyphro dilemma at me because it has been thoroughly defended and exposed as a false dilemma.

Well luckily, in the very paper by Mr. Schick from which you quoted earlier, there is actually an answer to Mr. Craig's question, and a defense of Mr. Armstrong's foundation, without invoking the commands of a deity. Allow me to quote from that same paper by Mr. Schick:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident" proclaims the Declaration of Independence. A self-evident truth is one that is such that if you understand it, you are justified in believing it. Consider, for example, the statement whatever has a shape has a size. If you understand that statement - if you know what shape and size are - you are justified in believing it. You don't need any additional evidence to support your belief. What makes self-evident truths self-evident is that they do not stand in need of any further justification; they justify themselves.

Consider the statement, "Unnecessary suffering is wrong." This statement does not say that suffering is wrong or that no one has suffered unnecessarily. What it says is that whenever one is made to suffer unnecessarily, a wrong has been committed. To anyone who understands what suffering and wrong are, this statement should be self-evident.

If you do not believe that this statement is true, the burden of proof is on you to provide a counterexample. If you are unable to do so - if you cannot cite a situation in which unnecessary suffering is right - then your claim that it is false is irrational, for you have no good reason to make it.

So, I think it is fair to suggest that Mr. Schick's response to Mr. Craig would be "It is self-evident that it is wrong to cause serious harms without justification, as we understand serious harms, and understand what is wrong. Under what circumstances would it be right to cause serious harms without justification?" Unless you can provide such a situation, we must, for the time being, conclude that causing suffering without justification is not a moral action.

I will also quote from that same paper by Mr. Schick on moral standards:

Where do these standards come from? No one, not even God, can make an action right by simply believing it to be right. Many, including the founders of this country, believe that moral standards can justify themselves!

*emphasis mine

Now, with all of that being said, tell us, from where do theists derive their moral foundation or standard?

 

[Ayersy]

Then why do you lock your house and car when you leave it or place your money in a bank.... in attempt to draw interest? Why do you get paid wages in scale per hour/salary? Of course you do ,you just discredit the person of intrinsic worth, but that doesn't mean your right.....It all is in how you discern truth even if your don't want to believe or chose not to believe in the truth! Follow the evidence wherever it takes you!

That's personal value. The universe doesn't care if my car gets stolen, only I do. I lock my car because it's MY stuff and I don't want it to get stolen. It's of value to me, but it's not of value to the guy who lives down the road.

That's personal value. There exists no pre-set value for my car. The same is true of human life, or anything else.

 

[LoooveLikeFire]

Well luckily, in the very paper by Mr. Schick from which you quoted earlier, there is actually an answer to Mr. Craig's question, and a defense of Mr. Armstrong's foundation, without invoking the commands of a deity. Allow me to quote from that same paper by Mr. Schick:

Happy you&#8217;re affirming (or at least defending) objective truth! Maybe you can help me show sithdoughnut the light?

So, I think it is fair to suggest that Mr. Schick's response to Mr. Craig would be "It is self-evident that it is wrong to cause serious harms without justification, as we understand serious harms, and understand what is wrong. Under what circumstances would it be right to cause serious harms without justification?" Unless you can provide such a situation, we must, for the time being, conclude that causing suffering without justification is not a moral action.

So his response to 'why is it wrong to cause serious harm to other people?' is that it simply is.

In other words, there are metaphysical truths which exist necessarily and require no proof or foundation, they simple exist? I honestly cannot comprehend how the value, justice, just exists. I know what it means to say that a person or an action is just. But I don't understand how it can exist as an abstract entity. Also, what makes the value justice better than say, malice? Where do you go to find out which set of values to adopt?

To clarify, I also believe that causing serious harm to someone without justification is wrong. Only difference is that I can provide a foundation without referring to &#8216;self-evident&#8217; truths.

I will also quote from that same paper by Mr. Schick on moral standards:

Yes, yes that comment on God at the end shows that he hasn&#8217;t heard of or doesn&#8217;t accept the Euthyphro dilemma. God can make an action right by believing it to be right. How, I hear you demand? His nature is good. His nature is the standard of goodness. He wills out of his nature and therefore cannot will evil. So to clarify, God can do everything that is possible but He cannot do logically impossible things. Eg. He cannot make a triangle with four points. He also cannot will evil because that is logically impossible.

Now, with all of that being said, tell us, from where do theists derive their moral foundation or standard?

From God

Good response anyway. I'm just happy you read the article!

 

[allhart]

That's personal value. The universe doesn't care if my car gets stolen, only I do. I lock my car because it's MY stuff and I don't want it to get stolen. It's of value to me, but it's not of value to the guy who lives down the road.

That's personal value. There exists no pre-set value for my car. The same is true of human life, or anything else.

so is killing babies wrong and if so why? Killing by mass genocide wrong if so why? Killing your whole family is it wrong if so why? Your family wouldn't be as important to me as you, so who's value system shall we live up to, yours or mine?

 

[JGG]

Happy you’re affirming (or at least defending) objective truth! Maybe you can help me show sithdoughnut the light?



So his response to 'why is it wrong to cause serious harm to other people?' is that it simply is.

In other words, there are metaphysical truths which exist necessarily and require no proof or foundation, they simple exist? I honestly cannot comprehend how the value, justice, just exists. I know what it means to say that a person or an action is just. But I don't understand how it can exist as an abstract entity. Also, what makes the value justice better than say, malice? Where do you go to find out which set of values to adopt?

To clarify, I also believe that causing serious harm to someone without justification is wrong. Only difference is that I can provide a foundation without referring to ‘self-evident’ truths.

Actually, I would claim that you can't. You can defer the problem to someone else (God) who told you, although that someone else is not available to explain why.

Yes, yes that comment on God at the end shows that he hasn’t heard of or doesn’t accept the Euthyphro dilemma.

Actually, if I may say so, the Euthyphro dilemma is just that, a dilemma. It isn't a philosophical theory, so it's not something that someone accepts, it's something someone solves.

God can make an action right by believing it to be right. How, I hear you demand? His nature is good. His nature is the standard of goodness. He wills out of his nature and therefore cannot will evil. So to clarify, God can do everything that is possible but He cannot do logically impossible things. Eg. He cannot make a triangle with four points. He also cannot will evil because that is logically impossible.

Well, all you really did is affirm one side of the dilemma over the other, but didn't really explain the difficulties with the side you picked. You essentially say that God is good, because the concept of God is greater than the concept of good.

However, we can no longer say that moral are objective, not even to God. Morals are arbitrary, which is to say subjective. Only in this case, subjective to God. In other words, God could come down tomorrow, and say that painting your nails is a good, moral thing to do, and it would be so. God could then come back on Friday and say that painting your nails, is an evil, immoral thing to do, and it would also be so. Morals are simply subject to the whims of God, and thus good and evil are subjective to God.

Furthermore, we cannot say that God is good. God is bigger than good. God can command what is good, but God Himself cannot be.

Finally, there is one major problem with this now: morals are no longer self-evident. We have no way to determine what is moral for ourselves, and moral discourse is pointless. "Causing serious harm without justification is moral because God says it is" can be used as a moral argument. Which is a disturbing concept, and exactly what Mr. Schick is describing in the passage you quoted.

 

[LoooveLikeFire]

Actually, I would claim that you can't. You can defer the problem to someone else (God) who told you, although that someone else is not available to explain why.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here but I'll take a stab anyway. You are claiming that I can't provide a foundation, all I can do is defer the problem to God. But God isn't available to explain why He chose the set of moral codes He did...?

Actually, if I may say so, the Euthyphro dilemma is just that, a dilemma. It isn't a philosophical theory, so it's not something that someone accepts, it's something someone solves.

The title: 'The Euthyphro Dilemma' is just a title we give the argument to categorise it. It's found in Plato's dialogue, Euthyphro and we just borrow the name; don't read into it too deeply.

Here is the Euthyphro dilemma:

Is something good because God commands it or does God command it because something is good?

If something is good because God commands it, then God could have willed that we hate each other; which is absurd. If God commands something because it is good, then what is good or bad is independent of God (and we can't have that now can we ).

Christians argue that something is good because God commands it, but that God can only command out of his nature; which is perfectly good. Now you may ask, why is His nature good, but I (or anyone else for that matter) cannot answer that question. Which isn't a problem in itself, because you do not need to explain your explanation to recognise it as the best. If you go on explaining everything you will soon explain explanation away. To see through everything, is the same as not to see. (C. S. Lewis) - I fear your reply to this may take us far off topic, but it is interesting stuuuuff nevertheless.

Well, all you really did is affirm one side of the dilemma over the other, but didn't really explain the difficulties with the side you picked. You essentially say that God is good, because the concept of God is greater than the concept of good.

Again, I'm having difficulty understanding what you are saying here. I'm saying God's nature is the standard of goodness.

However, we can no longer say that moral are objective, not even to God. Morals are arbitrary, which is to say subjective. Only in this case, subjective to God. In other words, God could come down tomorrow, and say that painting your nails is a good, moral thing to do, and it would be so. God could then come back on Friday and say that painting your nails, is an evil, immoral thing to do, and it would also be so. Morals are simply subject to the whims of God, and thus good and evil are subjective to God.

God wills out of His perfect nature. His nature cannot change; that is impossible and so it follows that he cannot will contradictory things. He is the standard and His standard never changes.

Furthermore, we cannot say that God is good. God is bigger than good. God can command what is good, but God Himself cannot be.

Again, I don't really follow, but I'll take a shot. What is good is not independent of God; it is dependent on Him.

Finally, there is one major problem with this now: morals are no longer self-evident.

God has imprinted a 'moral code' in all humans. Romans 2 talks about the image of God in man. We are fallen creatures though, and so our moral compass is not infallible. There are areas of grey, but our moral compass is clear enough to guide us. We apprehend a moral landscape in our everyday lives because God has implanted His perfect moral code within us. Our sin however, can somewhat distort this moral code.

We have no way to determine what is moral for ourselves, and moral discourse is pointless. "Causing serious harm without justification is moral because God says it is" can be used as a moral argument. Which is a disturbing concept, and exactly what Mr. Schick is describing in the passage you quoted.

God can't will anything that contradicts His perfectly good nature. God cannot will that we cause each other serious harm because He thinks that is morally wrong.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

YouTube - Treatise on Morality.

I thought id post this the guy has some pretty interesting things to say on the subject.

At about 8.45 he gets into 'The Euthyphro Dilemma' and the nature of god which is most relevant to this current point of discussion reached in this thread.
For exampe, saying that the nature of god is good is no more or less valid then to say the nature of bob is good. Bob is morally perfect there for anything bob does is morally right and anything done against the nature of bob is morally wrong.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

so is killing babies wrong and if so why? Killing by mass genocide wrong if so why? Killing your whole family is it wrong if so why? Your family wouldn't be as important to me as you, so who's value system shall we live up to, yours or mine?

Moralities (yes, there are more than just one) are a cultural product, born of a need for compromise and a productive pooling of resources. They are at least partially based on social instincts that we share with other species who live in groups, but feature distinctly cultural elements as well.

Reciprocity is one of the foundational principles underlying most moralities - and a concept that sociopaths cannot grasp. Accordingly, the rest of society "gangs up on them", subduing their destructive influence to the best of their ability. That's how it works.

Authoritarianists miss the fact that they have no safeguards whatsoever against atrocity. If their authority declares that killing families and committing mass genocide is right (as in the case of the Joshuan conquest in the Bible), then that's that. The authority said it, that settles it. Case closed.

 

[quatona]

so is killing babies wrong and if so why?

No, killing babies is good because my god says it´s good, and my god´s morality is objective.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

God can't will anything that contradicts His perfectly good nature. God cannot will that we cause each other serious harm because He thinks that is morally wrong.

I am struggling to infer your definition of the word "good". God (hypothetically) has willed nature into existence and nature contains some behaviours that most people would not call "good". God willed humans into existence and some people are not considered to be "good". God created Satan too, right? God is all-knowing and all-powerful but turns a blind eye to the torture of children, etc.
Please help me to understand this apparent contradiction.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Moralities (yes, there are more than just one) are a cultural product, born of a need for compromise and a productive pooling of resources. They are at least partially based on social instincts that we share with other species who live in groups, but feature distinctly cultural elements as well.

To what extent would you agree that our natural instincts are to seek reciprocity and that we have a natural aversion to killing other humans, but when embroiled in a group-think cause that appears to be defensive we will commit murder. IOW it takes a threat to our safety (or that of our loves ones) to over-ride our default reciprocity instinct.

 

[JGG]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here but I'll take a stab anyway. You are claiming that I can't provide a foundation, all I can do is defer the problem to God. But God isn't available to explain why He chose the set of moral codes He did...?

More what the basis of the moral codes are. You reject the premise that "unnecessary suffering is wrong because it is" but propose the alternative "unnecessary suffering is wrong because x says it is." We are still lacking an objective moral code.

Is something good because God commands it or does God command it because something is good?

If something is good because God commands it, then God could have willed that we hate each other; which is absurd.

Why is it absurd? Why couldn't God will that we hate each other? Realistically, hatred is part of human nature, and is basically unavoidable. Everybody hates. (<--I'm making that my catchphrase)

If God commands something because it is good, then what is good or bad is independent of God (and we can't have that now can we ).

Why not? That is the other horn of the dilemma, afterall. Is it just because it's undesirable?

Christians argue that something is good because God commands it, but that God can only command out of his nature; which is perfectly good.

So God commanded that He Himself was good? I also tend to get uncomfortable with the phrase "God can only..."

Now you may ask, why is His nature good, but I (or anyone else for that matter) cannot answer that question. Which isn't a problem in itself, because you do not need to explain your explanation to recognise it as the best.

Well, you might need to explain it to me, because "God's nature is good" is sort of a major premise we need to agree on. Suppose God's nature isn't necessarily good?

If you go on explaining everything you will soon explain explanation away. To see through everything, is the same as not to see. (C. S. Lewis) - I fear your reply to this may take us far off topic, but it is interesting stuuuuff nevertheless.

Okay...but that doesn't mean that I accept the premise you choose not to explain. You do need to explain how we know that God is good in the least.

Again, I'm having difficulty understanding what you are saying here. I'm saying God's nature is the standard of goodness.

Right, but we haven't agreed yet why that standard is good. We have no explanation for how we know that God's nature is good, much less that it can serve as a standard of goodness.

God wills out of His perfect nature. His nature cannot change; that is impossible and so it follows that he cannot will contradictory things. He is the standard and His standard never changes.

Wait, why is it that God's nature never changes? Is God static, and unchanging? Why is it impossible for Him to will contradictory things? Isn't God the master of the impossible?

Again, I don't really follow, but I'll take a shot. What is good is not independent of God; it is dependent on Him.

Nevermind, I think I got it.

God has imprinted a 'moral code' in all humans. Romans 2 talks about the image of God in man. We are fallen creatures though, and so our moral compass is not infallible. There are areas of grey, but our moral compass is clear enough to guide us. We apprehend a moral landscape in our everyday lives because God has implanted His perfect moral code within us. Our sin however, can somewhat distort this moral code.

Here's my problem with that: If your sin can distort your moral code, and put your perception of morality in shades of grey, how can you say you have an objective foundation? Especially when different concepts of God bring about different concepts of what is "objectively" moral? That objective foundation suddenly becomes very subjective.

Nevermind that a perfect moral compass that is warped by sin, looks exactly the same as an imperfect moral compass. A perfect ocean-liner that sunk because it did not see an iceberg in the fog was not a perfect ocean-liner.

God can't will anything that contradicts His perfectly good nature. God cannot will that we cause each other serious harm because He thinks that is morally wrong.

My problem is that I know why I think it is morally wrong. Why does God think it is morally wrong?

 

[Ayersy]

so is killing babies wrong and if so why? Killing by mass genocide wrong if so why? Killing your whole family is it wrong if so why? Your family wouldn't be as important to me as you, so who's value system shall we live up to, yours or mine?

It's not inherently wrong. Nothing is. There are no ground-rules for morality. Morality is a system of control. It's used to keep us humans from killing each other out. Morality as we know it is a byproduct of societies evolving, hence why morality changes with the times, and why different societies have different stances on what is and isn't moral. If there was some kind of objective morality, and we all were hardwired to know what is and isn't wrong, then parents wouldn't need to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong, we would all just know.

I personally think killing babies is wrong, but that's just me, Spartans used to kill babies if they weren't born strong enough. If morality is as objective as you claim, they'd know it was wrong, yet they deemed it the right thing to do, in order to strengthen their society.

The reason I think it's wrong, on a personal level, is because I know how much parents (usually) love their offspring, and killing the baby would therefore cause emotional pain to the parents, and I don't like to see people being hurt.

Neither the Spartans or I are right, it's opinion.

Genocide I also don't like since I don't like to see people being killed for no reason. Again, this is just me, it's up to me how I act. My own personal morals are my own opinions, I have no right to tell anyone else how to act.

None of these things are inherently wrong, but they hurt the human species, so societies deem them to be wrong.

As for who's values we should live by... Well, everyone should live by their own values, just don't be surprised when you end up shunned by your peers, disowned by your family, or put in prison if you don't abide by societies rules of morality.