Does morality exist without God?

[quatona]

Btw. you keep conflating "objective vs. subjective" and "relative vs. absolute". These are two entirely different categories.

 

[quatona]

A moral relativist believes what he is doing is correct, no matter how wrong it is.

No, a moral relativist recognizes that different people adhere to different sets of morals. This does neither affect the firmness with which he believes in his own moral set, nor does it diminish his ability to acknowledge when he violates his own moral code.

 

[TomZzyzx]

You are misattributing the problem. A moral subjectivist may believe that it´s ok to lie, steal and murder - but so may a moral objectivist. It doesn´t depend on the subjectivity/objectivity of their moral code but on the content of the code.

Your actual desire is not for an objective moral code - your actual desire is that everybody agrees with and keeps to your moral code.

A person who "believes" it's ok to lie, steal and murder can not be called a moral objectivist. A moral objectivist believes that its wrong to lie, steal and murder. So no, a moral objectivist may not believe that it's ok to lie, steal and murder.

You can "desire" what ever you want but the murderer is going to have a different subjective moral code, and he doesn't care what "your" subjective moral code is.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Sounds like the textbook example for moral relativism to me.

Why? What do you mean?

 

[steve_bakr]

God has given every human being a consciousness of right and wrong. Therefore, morality comes from God alone. But even an atheist can be moral, because God has still endowed him with a moral conscience.

Peace

"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalms 19:2a)

 

[steve_bakr]

A person who "believes" it's ok to lie, steal and murder can not be called a moral objectivist. A moral objectivist believes that its wrong to lie, steal and murder. So no, a moral objectivist may not believe that it's ok to lie, steal and murder.

You can "desire" what ever you want but the murderer is going to have a different subjective moral code, and he doesn't care what "your" subjective moral code is.

In most cases, the murderer knows that what he does is wrong. If he did not know the difference between good and evil, he would be legally insane.

Peace

"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalms 19:2a)

 

[quatona]

A person who "believes" it's ok to lie, steal and murder can not be called a moral objectivist. A moral objectivist believes that its wrong to lie, steal and murder. So no, a moral objectivist may not believe that it's ok to lie, steal and murder.

A moral objectivists believes that there´s an objective set of morals. "Moral objectivist" says nothing about what morals they consider objective.
Please educate yourself.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Parents usually teach kids their own moral code - no matter whether they consider it objective or subjective.

Exactly my point again. If the parents have a subjective morality then they will teach their kids that everyone's morality is equal. No one is right and no one is wrong when it comes to morality. You decide for your self what is right and what is wrong. This understanding of subjective morality breeds some kids that lie, steal, and murder, with no regard for human life.

 

[quatona]

You can "desire" what ever you want but the murderer is going to have a different subjective moral code, and he doesn't care what "your" subjective moral code is.

A murderer who is a moral objectivist doesn´t care what your moral code is, either. Your point being?

 

[TomZzyzx]

When I answer "from God" - will you adopt my morals?

If you answer, from the God of the bible, then I will tell you that I already believe in God's objective morality.

 

[quatona]

Exactly my point again. If the parents have a subjective morality then they will teach their kids that everyone's morality is equal.

No, doesn´t follow. Plus is not unsupported by reality.
Personally, I teach kids my own subjective moral views.
I think your mistake is that you think that moral subjectivists have no moral convictions (other than "morals are subjective" - which is not a moral stance but a meta-moral statement).

 

[quatona]

If you answer, from the God of the bible, then I will tell you that I already believe in God's objective morality.

Way to dodge the question. I´ll take it for an admission that you concede my point.

 

[quatona]

Why? What do you mean?

"Moral relativism" signifies the belief that morals can be different in different times and depending on the culture.
Your claim that there was a different morality for the ancient Jews than for everybody else (and today) is a textbook example for the very moral relativism you keep arguing against.

 

[TomZzyzx]

A moral objectivists believes that there´s an objective set of morals. "Moral objectivist" says nothing about what morals they consider objective.
Please educate yourself.

Please educate yourself by reading the question of this thread. We are all talking about a "Moral objectivist" believing that he considers "God's" morality to be objective and true.

 

[jayem]

Strictly speaking, there's a difference between objective and absolute. Something objective simply means that which can be observed by others. There are observeable, written rules for virtuous living, like the 10Cs, or Buddha's 5 Moral precepts. But in the practical sense, moral rules are rarely, if ever, absolute. What do you do when following one commandment conflicts with another? In real life, ethical decisions must usually be made on a case-by-case basis, using one's innate moral sensibility. So, in application, even supposedly objective moral rules become guidelines, subject to finesse. The larger issue is whether people behave better if they think that ethical guidelines are decreed and enforced by some supernatural deity. History, as I read it, doesn't suggest that at all. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, if religion is supposed to make people moral, I haven't noticed it.

 

[steve_bakr]

Strictly speaking, there's a difference between objective and absolute. Something objective simply means that which can be observed by others. There are observeable, written rules for virtuous living, like the 10Cs, or Buddha's 5 Moral precepts. But in the practical sense, moral rules are rarely, if ever, absolute. What do you do when following one commandment conflicts with another? In real life, ethical decisions must usually be made on a case-by-case basis, using one's innate moral sensibility. So, in application, even supposedly objective moral rules become guidelines, subject to finesse. The larger issue is whether people behave better if they think that ethical guidelines are decreed and enforced by some supernatural deity. History, as I read it, doesn't suggest that at all. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, if religion is supposed to make people moral, I haven't noticed it.

There are certain universal morals that exist in every religion.

Bertrand Russel is a famous atheist, and it is no doubt that he would say something like that. He does not seem to have studied the lives of the saints.

Peace

"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalms 19:2a)

 

[quatona]

Please educate yourself by reading the question of this thread. We are all talking about a "Moral objectivist" believing that he considers "God's" morality to be objective and true.

So you think the OP merely pretends to conclude what actually is its premise?

 

[quatona]

Please educate yourself by reading the question of this thread. We are all talking about a "Moral objectivist" believing that he considers "God's" morality to be objective and true.

So when you say "moral objectivist" you don´t mean "moral objectivist" but actually "a guy who believes he has figured it all out"?

 

[TomZzyzx]

(Old, not new... just saying.)

So this absolute moral you are talking to isn't objective?

No, it's objective. Homosexuality is a sin in the Old Testament and is a sin in the New Testament. The objective moral wrong, homosexuality, is still the same.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Way to dodge the question. I´ll take it for an admission that you concede my point.

I answered your question. If you are talking about "the God of the Bible", then we have the same morals. Are you talking about "the God of the Bible"? If you are, don't we have the same morals?