Does morality exist without God?

[quatona]

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).

Yes. That´s what they believe. Believing you are objective doens´t make it so, though.

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.

Several times you said that this is what you believe.

If saying "I am a moral objectivist" is sufficient for being objective and right I will henceforth claim that I am a moral objectivist, too.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Yes. That´s what they believe. Believing you are objective doens´t make it so, though.

Several times you said that this is what you believe.

If saying "I am a moral objectivist" is sufficient for being objective and right I will henceforth claim that I am a moral objectivist, too.

This...a million times this. Wonderful post. The irony for me is that even if I believe that God is the external factor of an objective morality(and I don't believe this), it gives the fellow Christian no certainty that the expression of that objective moral code will be properly performed. In effect, in my opinion the Christian who subjectively defaults to saying that believe in objective morality and ARE an objective moralist is simply trying to reduce morality to a Do-It-Yourself Morality Kit via belief in God.

Which is odd considering how much the bible goes on about how we are all sinners and cannot ever compare to God.

 

[Texan40]

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.

God is absolutely "natural" as he is the author of everything. If there is no design to life or the universe then "human flourishing" is nothing more than each individual's shallow desire to continue living, not some collective "will" for the greater good.

 

[TomZzyzx]

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.

Since a moral subjectivist's morality is based on internal preferences each individual could have a different definition of murder. As I said before this is the problem with moral subjectivism, there is no universal answer.

 

[TomZzyzx]

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

Why don't you answer the question first, Who's they?, before you start assuming what I believe and claim.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Yes. That´s what they believe. Believing you are objective doens´t make it so, though.

Several times you said that this is what you believe.

If saying "I am a moral objectivist" is sufficient for being objective and right I will henceforth claim that I am a moral objectivist, too.

Believing in objective morality and believing you are objective is not the same thing. You are confusing the two.

 

[quatona]

Why don't you answer the question first, Who's they?, before you start assuming what I believe and claim.

This entire conversation was in response to your post #176:

I agree that the difference between subjective moralist and objective moralist is where they believe their morals come from. But they both do not have subjective morals. 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.

To which I responded:

That´s at least what they claim and believe.

My "they" referred to the very "they" you used.
You would know best whom you were talking about.

 

[quatona]

Believing in objective morality and believing you are objective is not the same thing. You are confusing the two.

No, I am saying the very opposite. I am saying that the belief that there´s an objective morality (and even more so the belief that you have figured it out) is a subjective belief.

 

[Eudaimonist]

God is absolutely "natural" as he is the author of everything.

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

If there is no design to life or the universe then "human flourishing" is nothing more than each individual's shallow desire to continue living, not some collective "will" for the greater good.

- 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

 

[Texan40]

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

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.

- 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.

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

- 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.

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.

 

[Freodin]

Since a moral subjectivist's morality is based on internal preferences each individual could have a different definition of murder. As I said before this is the problem with moral subjectivism, there is no universal answer.

And I even asked you not to evade the question...

Again, what do you is think is the definition (or several definitions) for "murder" by a subjectivist?

You

 

[TomZzyzx]

And I even asked you not to evade the question...

Again, what do you is think is the definition (or several definitions) for "murder" by a subjectivist?

You

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.

 

[Freodin]

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.

The definition of "murder" is "unjustified killing". I don't know any moral subjectivist who uses a different definition.

So any moral relativist would agree that unjustified killing is unjustified. It is wrong.

Now the difference is just what justification you accept... and here you "objectivist" and the subjectivists can disagree.

Though the disagreement is on the details, not on the method. Your "objective" morals is just as subjective as everyone elses. You just attach a different label to it.

 

[Texan40]

The definition of "murder" is "unjustified killing". I don't know any moral subjectivist who uses a different definition.

So any moral relativist would agree that unjustified killing is unjustified. It is wrong.

Now the difference is just what justification you accept... and here you "objectivist" and the subjectivists can disagree.

Though the disagreement is on the details, not on the method. Your "objective" morals is just as subjective as everyone elses. You just attach a different label to it.

Actually the definition is "unlawful" not "unjustified." You can be justified in protecting yourself and still unlawfully injure or kill your assailant and be punished for it (depending on the subsequent laws of your country).

 

[Freodin]

Actually the definition is "unlawful" not "unjustified." You can be justified in protecting yourself and still unlawfully injure or kill your assailant and be punished for it (depending on the subsequent laws of your country).

That is a difference between morality and law. Somehow I do not think you would want to defend the Holocaust as not being murder, do you?

So let's stay with "unjustified" for now. After all, the law justifies actions. The intent behind a law is justification.

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?

 

[blarg the 2nd]

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

i think humans very a bit so the is not 1 human standard but i guess reality and the way things work dose shape what every one thinks just not same shape for every one

 

[blarg the 2nd]

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.

i like to reverse part of that

i think human morals are based on human values not the other way round you could say a god as the being responsible for human vlues exisitng is the source of all human values and ther fore all human morals

even if god dosent agree with all of is creations

 

[SonOfTheWest]

God is absolutely "natural" as he is the author of everything. If there is no design to life or the universe then "human flourishing" is nothing more than each individual's shallow desire to continue living, not some collective "will" for the greater good.

Considering the length to which some of us are attempting to impress upon Tom the reality that the belief "that there´s an objective morality (and even more so the belief that you have figured it out) is a subjective belief." As quatona so well put. It strikes me as a rather large irony that you then add the subjective belief that other people should be informed that if there is no "design to life." then they are living shallow selfish lives.

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.

That sounds positively Islamic.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

God is absolutely "natural" as he is the author of everything. If there is no design to life or the universe then "human flourishing" is nothing more than each individual's shallow desire to continue living, not some collective "will" for the greater good.

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

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Since a moral subjectivist's morality is based on internal preferences each individual could have a different definition of murder. As I said before this is the problem with moral subjectivism, there is no universal answer.

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