Does morality exist without God?

[SonOfTheWest]

why must there be? and how can there be when peole feel differently

Not to mention his "a moral subjectivist's morality is based on internal preferences." is I hate to say...woefully amateur. Study some sociology with an emphasis on societal ethics. It takes a rather unique hermit mentality to have an purely internal moral code.

 

[Texan40]

Let's keep the example. There is a huge number of people in your country, living peacefully and productively and mostly minding their own business.Are you justified in killing them all, because they are adherents of a different religion?
And now consider that there is a huge number of subhuman beings in your country, bend solely on destroying everything that is good and right. Are you justified in killing this pest?

The term "subhuman" is in itself a weak justification to devalue and dehumanize. It is much harder to kill another human being and much easier to "rid yourself of a pest" but that is propaganda and semantics, not morality.

More broadly I would go so far as to say that there is no way to "morally" kill regardless of the justification. It is yet another aspect of sin in a fallen world. It makes some uncomfortable but we are given 2 commandments by our Savior:

"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 neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

No justification for killing here. This is absolute morality made simple. (simple in concept, obviously not in application)

 

[Texan40]

everything being the result of some gods desire or mechanical nature is not some how more meaning full then chance

its just one way things might be vs another where one way you would value more became that's how you are

There is no "chance." Everything can be explained with the proper knowledge to see the connections between the action and the consequence.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Being the "author of everything" is precisely what makes something above nature, or "supernatural".



- Human flourishing isn't a desire, but a pattern of living.

- There is nothing shallow about wanting to live excellently as a human being, which is what flourishing is.

- Human flourishing isn't mere survival, and a heroic death could actually be the finishing touch on one's flourishing, where cowardly survival would be what taints one's flourishing.

- A flourishing individual can be a humanitarian who has a benevolent regard for humanity. There is nothing about flourishing that requires one to have an excessively narrow or atomistic view of ethics.

- The term "greater good" is a favorite of dictators. It suggests that your good just isn't all that important. Atrocities are easy to commit for the sake of a "greater good". Instead, we should accept that everyone has their own good, but that, as social beings, it's also healthy to take an interest in others.


eudaimonia,

Mark

nature to me is simply what is god would be a part nature even if it shaped the rest of it


you make being an excellent human being who flourishes sound like working toward whatever you would like yourself to be like

that seems subjective except for the concern for other part that you seem to say applys to every one

which wont work out if what any one dosent have health as a high priority

such a person or way of thinking that's not health oriented may not last long but that dosent mean it dosent count for as long as it exists

the aversion to having others treat ones version of good as unimportant is common and i share it but its not important out of the minds of peel who feel that way. and not every one feels that the good of others are just as important as there own ideas of good.

 

[quatona]

Observing the world as it is shows us that morality is subjective (different people have different moral views). This is undisputable. Don´t shoot the messenger.

Now, if you would me believe that - along with this undisputable variety of moral takes = subjective morality) there is an objective morality: bring it to the table, along with the evidence.

 

[Freodin]

The term "subhuman" is in itself a weak justification to devalue and dehumanize. It is much harder to kill another human being and much easier to "rid yourself of a pest" but that is propaganda and semantics, not morality.

I know that it is difficult for Christians even to imagine that other people could be right, but try it, just for the sake of the argument.

This is no propaganda, no semantics, no devaluation or dehumanisation. It is cold, hard facts - or divinly revealed truth. These beings are "subhuman", mere beasts, not real humans like us. And they are evil. All their desire is set on destroying the noble race of humanity, by whatever depraved way their twisted minds can imagine.

Are you justified in killing them, to save humanity?

More broadly I would go so far as to say that there is no way to "morally" kill regardless of the justification. It is yet another aspect of sin in a fallen world. It makes some uncomfortable but we are given 2 commandments by our Savior:

"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 neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

No justification for killing here. This is absolute morality made simple. (simple in concept, obviously not in application)

And still there are Christians who defend wars or killing in defence of their property or capital punishment... and they don't see any moral problems with that. And still they claim to follow the same absolute morality that you do.

How is that possible? Aren't they (and you!) making the same subjective judgements that everyone else does? Aren't they (and you!) making the decision: this is loving, this is not. This is right, this is wrong?

You cannot escape subjective morals. Even when all your morals is based on agreement with outside source... it is still you who has to make the moral decision of "I agree."

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Perhaps this is just semantics. I don't see God as separated from nature but instead unique in it. He is available for personal experience in everyday life. One doesn't need a supernatural experience to know God.



Thank you for the specificity. I took your original meaning to be flourishing as a species, not of a quality of individual life.



God, as the author of all, designed purposefully. We have a limited mental capacity and an inability to calculate and appreciate how current actions may effect future states of being. There are circumstances that on the surface seem easy to interpret but upon a decade of reflection appear very different. This is the problem I have with "human benevolence." It is by nature short-sighted at best. It is our nature to know little of what we truly want and none of what we truly need.

some of what you truly want may shift over time and circumstance rather then being a permanent desire that you just haven't discovered yet

and what could you possibly need and not just want

 

[Eudaimonist]

nature to me is simply what is god would be a part nature even if it shaped the rest of it

Okay.

you make being an excellent human being who flourishes sound like working toward whatever you would like yourself to be like

It's not that. You don't have complete freedom because you may misunderstand your personal good. However, there probably is a range of good choices that you may select from.

For instance, when I was selecting an undergraduate college degree, which was one of the biggest choices of my life, I had considered several possible careers. I had considered science, computer science, computer engineering, engineering, and philosophy. I did not for a moment consider actor or salesman or many other possible careers. I knew that I had an analytical mind, and little if any talent for putting on a show in front of other people, and this limited the acceptable range of choices.

The point here is that flourishing requires that one makes good use of one's natural talents and inclinations. Yes, choice is involved, but choice isn't what determines what will best contribute to my flourishing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[blarg the 2nd]

I didn't evade your question, I answered you with the truth about moral subjectivist. It doesn't matter what the definition for "murder" by a subjective is. The problem with moral relativism is that some relativist don't believe murder is wrong, even if they know what the definition of murder is.

er if murder is wrong killing then you know murder is wrong it may work out for some people that murder dosent exist for themselves if they think all kinds of killing is not wrong

but an objectivest is functionally the same way for them killing could just never be wrong for any one

or they could kill pepole for any paticuler reosn belving its not worng to do so and the situations for when killing would not be murder could shift around if there beliths about what is morel shift around .

on Tuesday i believe killing for x is always wrong and always murder

on Wednesday i could think i was wrong on Tuesday and now killing for h is always murder but killing for x is now justified killing

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Not to mention his "a moral subjectivist's morality is based on internal preferences." is I hate to say...woefully amateur. Study some sociology with an emphasis on societal ethics. It takes a rather unique hermit mentality to have an purely internal moral code.

well splitting hairs i think every one has a purely internal moral code just that they tend to be shaped be whats perceived be external

but evne the effect extenrel inlfunces is shaped by how you are

 

[blarg the 2nd]

There is no "chance." Everything can be explained with the proper knowledge to see the connections between the action and the consequence.

that may be but im not sure that grants any deep objective meaning

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Okay.



It's not that. You don't have complete freedom because you may misunderstand your personal good. However, there probably is a range of good choices that you may select from.

For instance, when I was selecting an undergraduate college degree, which was one of the biggest choices of my life, I had considered several possible careers. I had considered science, computer science, computer engineering, engineering, and philosophy. I did not for a moment consider actor or salesman or many other possible careers. I knew that I had an analytical mind, and little if any talent for putting on a show in front of other people, and this limited the acceptable range of choices.

The point here is that flourishing requires that one makes good use of one's natural talents and inclinations. Yes, choice is involved, but choice isn't what determines what will best contribute to my flourishing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

hears a question i hope you may fined interesting what should you do if your talents and inclinations don't mach up and you don't like any of the things your good at or you love something your terrible at

 

[Texan40]

I know that it is difficult for Christians even to imagine that other people could be right, but try it, just for the sake of the argument.

I have no idea where "right" and "wrong" may even occur in such a hypothetical. This has more to do with me being a realist than a Christian. There are so many instances where "being right" means nothing whatsoever but actually doing the right thing requires personal sacrifice.

This is no propaganda, no semantics, no devaluation or dehumanisation. It is cold, hard facts - or divinly revealed truth. These beings are "subhuman", mere beasts, not real humans like us. And they are evil. All their desire is set on destroying the noble race of humanity, by whatever depraved way their twisted minds can imagine.
Are you justified in killing them, to save humanity?

If a horde of alien animals is hell-bent on killing humanity, is it "moral" to kill them? Probably not. Even if there is no other solution? Still no. Unfortunately in reality it is not always "moral" to do what is necessary for a particular outcome. I know people like to think that "right" is on "their side" but that's just a justification. Would I join in killing any that threatened myself or my family? Absolutely. Unless the voice of God Himself forbade me from doing so I would defend myself, my family and my neighbors. Would I feel justified morally afterwards? Not one bit. I would feel awful.

And still there are Christians who defend wars or killing in defence of their property or capital punishment... and they don't see any moral problems with that. And still they claim to follow the same absolute morality that you do.

How is that possible? Aren't they (and you!) making the same subjective judgements that everyone else does? Aren't they (and you!) making the decision: this is loving, this is not. This is right, this is wrong?

You cannot escape subjective morals. Even when all your morals is based on agreement with outside source... it is still you who has to make the moral decision of "I agree."

For sake of argument why don't you define "Christians" as people who actually follow Christ's example. That sort of narrows down the field a bit, doesn't it? I find myself in and out of that line, but more in than out since I devoted action to it. I believe that there are some things that are morally absolute regardless of the decision to accept them.

 

[Belk]

I didn't evade your question, I answered you with the truth about moral subjectivist. It doesn't matter what the definition for "murder" by a subjective is. The problem with moral relativism is that some relativist don't believe murder is wrong, even if they know what the definition of murder is.

Why is that a problem precisely?

 

[quatona]

There is no "chance." Everything can be explained with the proper knowledge to see the connections between the action and the consequence.

I tend to agree. However, I would like to add that there is not a monocausal "one action -> on consequence" relation, but a complex multitude effects to any action, and a complex multitude of causes for each result.

 

[Texan40]

that may be but im not sure that grants any deep objective meaning

The absence of random chance means that everything going back to the absolute beginning has a design. It is a massive sequence of action and consequence which has a definite conclusion.

 

[quatona]

For sake of argument why don't you define "Christians" as people who actually follow Christ's example.

1. Because some self-professing Christians would be very disappointed (to say it mildly) if I - the non-believer - would exclude them from Christianity.
2. Because that´s not the definition all self-professing Christians work from, in the first place.
3. Because among self-professing Christians there are disagreements what it actually means to "follow Christ´s example".

 

[Texan40]

I tend to agree. However, I would like to add that there is not a monocausal "one action -> on consequence" relation, but a complex multitude effects to any action, and a complex multitude of causes for each result.

I absolutely agree. This is why "random" has to suffice for so much. It's virtually impossible for us to figure out which actions contributed to certain consequences. This doesn't mean that they aren't there just that we are unable to know them.

 

[quatona]

The absence of random chance means that everything going back to the absolute beginning has a design.

This certainly does not follow.

 

[quatona]

I absolutely agree. This is why "random" has to suffice for so much. It's virtually impossible for us to figure out which actions contributed to certain consequences. This doesn't mean that they aren't there just that we are unable to know them.

Completely agreed. It should be noted that it´s even harder to predict the multitude of consequences to an action - which is a huge obstacle for successful ethical/moral premeditation. I am inclined to think that this unpredictability is what some people mean when they say "random".