Does morality exist without God?

[quatona]

You can do what ever you want. It doesn't make my statement wrong.

Ok, but you making your statement didn´t make it right, in the first place.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

We're not talking about the legality of murder.

No, we're not. Murder is still however a legal TERM. You are confusing laymen use of a term with the professional use of a term. Correct that mistake and move on.

But they both do not have subjective morals.

Morals are by nature, subjective.

The objective moralist does not get his morals from his (subjective) understanding of what his morally should be. They get their morally from God's objective moral truths.

This goes back to my, you don't seem to understand the differences between moral law by axiom vs moral law by divine dictatorship quite well enough yet to even engage in the conversation. Until you do there's no point in having this conversation.

I know that you don't realize that "moral law by axiom" is from the God of the bible.

Since I haven't made comment on the matter, the only correct comment is..you don't have any idea what my opinion is.

So theistic moral objectivists believe that their subjective morals come from God and are therefore objective? Now, how does their subjective opinion constitute objectivity?
The difference between you and a moral subjectivist is that you claim that the morals of your preference are objective.
Saying "my opinion is objective" doesn´t bypass your subjectivity.

And in my opinion this makes objectivists potentially very VERY dangerous people.

 

[Verv]

But so what? I do believe that morals are basically instinctive, though we are not totally controlled by them. We are animals, but unique ones. The neuronal architecture of our brains gives us a singular capacity to learn, think, and put our thoughts into action. Which, as far as we know, is greater than that of any other extant animal species. Our reasoning ability allows us to consciously override our instinctive drives. So we have a much greater range of behavioral choices than all other animals. But even if our behaviors were largely reflexive, without much cogitation, that wouldn't be a "bad' thing. It would be how we evolved. It would just be our nature. Concepts of good and bad don't really apply to natural phenomena.

Oh, so you believe morality is rooted in some form of evolutionary darwinism?

Congratulations -- you have begun answering a fundamental question of morality.

Hats off to you, though I disagree.

In this scenario, though, there are many things that are trendy to condemn, e.g. slavery, massacres, etc. that in many contexts cannot properly be condemned. But if you stand by it... So be it.

There is nothing evil in nature?

OK -- so a serial killer with something wrong in his brain is not a fundamentally evil creature?

That would mean that creating humans - moral beings, who are supposed to "do right" - in a way so that they don't do right.... is wrong.

No, that is not right.

The value of human existence is not entirely derived from doing right/doing wrong, but the entirety of the learning experience and the life process, and furthermore, humans do far more right than wrong.

The majority of humans act in a generally moral way the overwhelming majority of the time.

i dont know if there is a god its also easy to say ther is one to say that someng is always right or worng for every one because moral cetanty comforts you

It does?

I get comfort from all sorts of things but my beliefs are not one of them.

It'd be quite pleasant to believe in no standards and not be held accountable for your actions.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Oh, so you believe morality is rooted in some form of evolutionary darwinism?

Depends. Does someone mean darwinism in the concept of social darwinism, which is whole heartedly divorced from genetic fact or does someone mean darwinism simply as a perhaps lazy pop phrase for the process of natural selection? This is important as they lead to very very different places. Though I suspect you already know that.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Oh, so you believe morality is rooted in some form of evolutionary darwinism?

Congratulations -- you have begun answering a fundamental question of morality.

Hats off to you, though I disagree.

In this scenario, though, there are many things that are trendy to condemn, e.g. slavery, massacres, etc. that in many contexts cannot properly be condemned. But if you stand by it... So be it.

There is nothing evil in nature?

OK -- so a serial killer with something wrong in his brain is not a fundamentally evil creature?



No, that is not right.

The value of human existence is not entirely derived from doing right/doing wrong, but the entirety of the learning experience and the life process, and furthermore, humans do far more right than wrong.

The majority of humans act in a generally moral way the overwhelming majority of the time.



It does?

I get comfort from all sorts of things but my beliefs are not one of them.

It'd be quite pleasant to believe in no standards and not be held accountable for your actions.

o would it now then why dont you?

 

[blarg the 2nd]

just because i don't believe a murder is evil in some universal cosmic sense dosent mean i cant hate one or seek his or her death or finde the acts comited by said murder evil to myself

believing in stand alone commandments on the matter dosent change anything for me

and that's what i don't get about this objective morality

things that can violate it can happen, things that can be good or utterly evil to me, can be a a part of it

how is it objective when it docent apply to so many people perhaps no one or effect anything of itself how dose it exist at all

and if it can why should it be valued above my own sense of right and wrong?

and it would still be subjective whether or not its good or evil whether actions suggested by it should be attempted or avoided

 

[blarg the 2nd]

subjective morals seem to be about making judgments

objective morals seems to be about saying judgment are made for you and for every one else you may not know about them or heed them but there still supposed to matter some how

 

[TomZzyzx]

So theistic moral objectivists believe that their subjective morals come from God and are therefore objective? Now, how does their subjective opinion constitute objectivity?
The difference between you and a moral subjectivist is that you claim that the morals of your preference are objective.
Saying "my opinion is objective" doesn´t bypass your subjectivity.

Let me try to make this clear. A moral objectivist by definition cannot have subjective morals. It an oxymoron. Moral objectivist believe that their morality comes from moral truths (the object). Moral subjectivist believe that their morality comes from themselves (the subject). I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "the morals of your preference". I'm a moral objectivist, I have no preferences when it come to morality. My morality comes from God's moral truths. I never said this was my opinion. This is what subjective morality and objective morality means.

 

[TomZzyzx]

At least that´s what they believe and claim.

Who's they? It's not what I believe and claim. You must be mistaken.

 

[Belk]

Let's get back to basics, shall we. "Does morality exist without God?"

If you don't believe in God's objective morality then you believe in a subjective morality. Subjective morality states that moral truths apply to the subject, the person, not the object. Objective morality states that moral truths apply to the object, like murder, not the subject. If murder is an objective moral wrong then it applies to everyone, whether they believe it or not. if murder is a subjective wrong, then it only applies to the subject, or person, who believes it's wrong. Subjective truths are based on our preferences and can change according to our whims. Objective truths are realities that we discover and cannot be changed by our whims.

Moral Relativism is a type of subjectivism. It states that moral truths are preferences, like our tastes in foods, or cars, or the the type of people we are friends with. What's the difference between a moral relativist and a person who admits that he has no morality at all? There isn't any. How does a relativist make a moral decision? He decides for himself whatever he thinks is best. How does someone with no morality know haw to act? He decides for himself whatever he thinks is best. If you believe morality is determined by subjective preferences then you give up the possibility of making moral judgements about anyone's actions. Relativist can't accuse anyone of wrongdoing.

Moral objectivism states that moral rules are true regardless of whether anyone believes it. Moral objectivist believe that moral rules are self evident, the same way that math and logic is self evident. We don't invent morality, we discover it. Morality is universal, applying to all people at all times. If murder is wrong for one person then it is wrong for everyone. Christians believe that God has given us this objective morality.

welcome to the dilemma.

Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TomZzyzx]

No, we're not. Murder is still however a legal TERM. You are confusing laymen use of a term with the professional use of a term. Correct that mistake and move on.
Morals are by nature, subjective.

This goes back to my, you don't seem to understand the differences between moral law by axiom vs moral law by divine dictatorship quite well enough yet to even engage in the conversation. Until you do there's no point in having this conversation.

Since I haven't made comment on the matter, the only correct comment is..you don't have any idea what my opinion is.

And in my opinion this makes objectivists potentially very VERY dangerous people.

I can't be "confusing laymen use of a term with the professional use of a term" when I specifically said I was using the Bible's definition of murder. You are being dishonest by misrepresenting what I said. Correct your mistake and move on. Only moral subjectivist believe "morals are by nature subjective." Moral objectivist believe that morals are objective.

Lest test our moral systems to see what kind of person it can produce. Let's assess the value of the moral rule, be kind to your neighbor, for example, look at the principle in action. When this ethic is practiced consistently, it produces someone like Mother Teresa or Mahatma Gandhi. What kind of moral champion does a moral subjectivist produce? What do we call those who most thoroughly apply the principles of subjective relativism, those who follow the beat of their own moral drum? In our society, we have a name for those people, thy are a homicide detective's worst nightmare. The ultimate subjective relativist is a sociopath, one with no conscience. A very dangerous person.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Let me try to make this clear. A moral objectivist by definition cannot have subjective morals. It an oxymoron. Moral objectivist believe that their morality comes from moral truths (the object). Moral subjectivist believe that their morality comes from themselves (the subject). I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "the morals of your preference". I'm a moral objectivist, I have no preferences when it come to morality. My morality comes from God's moral truths. I never said this was my opinion. This is what subjective morality and objective morality means.

but you dont have objective morals just because you believe in them they may jsut be subjectve and you simply believe otherwise

 

[blarg the 2nd]

i guess if objective morality existed some how some one who didn't believe in it could still follow it without knowing or believing they do as well

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I can't be "confusing laymen use of a term with the professional use of a term" when I specifically said I was using the Bible's definition of murder.

As I've said elsewhere. No theocracy, no relevancy. When I live in a theocracy I will worry about that mosaic law.

You are being dishonest by misrepresenting what I said. Correct your mistake and move on. Only moral subjectivist believe "morals are by nature subjective." Moral objectivist believe that morals are objective.

There is no dishonesty in correcting someone on what a word actually means and refers to. Moral objectivists and subjectivists can think what they like. It doesn't change that by nature, morals are subjective. As for the rest. As others have pointed out you are simply giving examples subjective morality and attempting to "file off the serial numbers." and write in objective where you wish.

When people learn the difference between moral apathy and moral subjectivity this will be a productive conversation.

 

[TomZzyzx]

As I've said elsewhere. No theocracy, no relevancy. When I live in a theocracy I will worry about that mosaic law.

There is no dishonesty in correcting someone on what a word actually means and refers to. Moral objectivists and subjectivists can think what they like. It doesn't change that by nature, morals are subjective. As for the rest. As others have pointed out you are simply giving examples subjective morality and attempting to "file off the serial numbers." and write in objective where you wish.

When people learn the difference between moral apathy and moral subjectivity this will be a productive conversation.

That's not what you were being dishonest about, but then again you knew that. Dishonesty again.

Morals are not subjective, and I've explained what you get when someone takes moral relativism to it's logical conclusion. Morals are objective, but a moral subjectivist can't admit it because they would have to believe in a moral law giver, and we all know who that would be. And until you admit that this will never be a productive conversation.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's not what you were being dishonest about, but then again you knew that. Dishonesty again.

Morals are not subjective, and I've explained what you get when someone takes moral relativism to it's logical conclusion. Morals are objective, but a moral subjectivist can't admit it because they would have to believe in a moral law giver, and we all know who that would be. And until you admit that this will never be a productive conversation.

It is rather silly to say that other people have to "admit" that you have effectively won the debate in order to have the debate.

In my case, I can understand why others see morals as subjective, and I agree that morals are human-created concepts. However, they are also objective in the sense that they are rooted in objective reality, much like the view that the Earth is an oblate spheroid is rooted in objective reality.

However, what I reject is the idea that a God must be that root. It is instead something natural -- the requirements of human life, the fulfillment of which is human flourishing. The human good is that which contributes to human life. To put that another way, human life sets an objective standard for creating moral values and judging their objective worth to human individuals.

None of this requires a "lawgiver".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SonOfTheWest]

It is rather silly to say that other people have to "admit" that you have effectively won the debate in order to have the debate.

Thank you for pointing that out.

In my case, I can understand why others see morals as subjective, and I agree that morals are human-created concepts. However, they are also objective in the sense that they are rooted in objective reality, much like the view that the Earth is an oblate spheroid is rooted in objective reality

I attempted to explain to Tom in an earlier point about the objectivity of the consequences to actions. Of course you would think that would be obvious to people. You kill someone and there's still a body regardless of where you divide the line between justified killing or not or what others think.

 

[Freodin]

Yes I can see you have a problem with my view, since you don't seem to understand it. Murder is defined as wrong to a moral objectivist, not every moral subjectivist agrees that murder is wrong. The justification for killing has nothing to do with murder. The bible defines murder as the unjustified taking of a human life.

I don't think you even understand what you are talking about. If what you said here is correct, then please tell me: how do you think moral subjectivists define murder?

This is an important question, please do not evade it.

 

[Freodin]

No, that is not right.

The value of human existence is not entirely derived from doing right/doing wrong, but the entirety of the learning experience and the life process, and furthermore, humans do far more right than wrong.

The majority of humans act in a generally moral way the overwhelming majority of the time.

So a little wrong is no longer wrong? Or it is no longer wrong to do wrong, because of the entirety of the learning experience and because, all in all, you do more right?

Basically, I agree with you. You are correct in what you said. Human value is not based on their morals. Humans do more right than wrong. And this is... good.


But this definitly devaluates the idea of God as the prime good and giver of morals... because in doing wrong - even if he does more right than wrong - he doesn't do better than his creation.

 

[quatona]

Who's they? It's not what I believe and claim. You must be mistaken.

So you don´t believe and claim what you claimed and said you believed in the post I directly responded to?
That´s weird.