Does morality exist without God?

[quatona]

That's why some cultures believe raping women is ok. Some cultures believe killing is ok. Each culture decides what is right and what is wrong. This is Moral Relativism and it is a dangerous moral system.

No, this is not moral relativism. More often than not it´s the clashing of different brands of moral objectivism.

 

[quatona]

Then how do children recognize that a situation is "wrong" even if they have not encountered it before?

It´s basically the same reason why people/children go "ouch!!!" when they see someone hurting himself/being hurt.

Even if they have not been told the "rules" of the situation? Conscience is not trial and error.

Agreed. Conscience is basically "I wouldn´t like this done to me."
I recommend studying recent results of brain research if you are interested in these questions.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

No, this is not moral relativism. More often than not it´s the clashing of different brands of moral objectivism.

though it would appear most or all brands of objectivism are relative

 

[TomZzyzx]

No, this is not moral relativism. More often than not it´s the clashing of different brands of moral objectivism.

That is completely wrong. It is called, "Society Does Relativism" and since moral relativism is a type of moral subjectivism, is the opposite of moral objectivism.

 

[quatona]

That is completely wrong. It is called, "Society Does Relativism" and since moral relativism is a type of moral subjectivism, is the opposite of moral objectivism.

No, you are missing the point. Many of them are convinced that morals are objective, just like you are - so they are moral objectivist, just like you are.

 

[quatona]

That is completely wrong. It is called, "Society Does Relativism"

No, that´s not what it´s called when you talk about different societies holding different views as to what´s objectively right and wrong.

 

[Belk]

That's why some cultures believe raping women is ok. Some cultures believe killing is ok. Each culture decides what is right and what is wrong. This is Moral Relativism and it is a dangerous moral system. Morals are not subjective to the culture or individual, they are objective and true for everyone. If rape and killing is wrong for one culture or individual, then it is wrong for all cultures and individuals.

OK Tom. Lay out for us step by step how one determines what these objective moral standards are, how they are derived, and how one verifies that they are correct objective standards.

 

[TomZzyzx]

OK Tom. Lay out for us step by step how one determines what these objective moral standards are, how they are derived, and how one verifies that they are correct objective standards.

Sure, no problem. These are excerpts from the book, "Relativism (Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air)", by Beckwith and Koukl.

"There are two ways for something to be true: it can be subjectively true or it can be objectively true." "Subjective truths are based on internal preferences and change according to our whims. Objective truths, in contrast, are realities in the external world that we discover and cannot be changed by our internal feelings." "Moral relativism is a type of subjectivism. It holds that moral truths are preferences much like our taste in ice cream."

"Moral relativism is contrasted with moral absolutism, which can mean different things. Minimally, moral absolutism holds that a moral rule is true regardless of whether anyone believes it." "Absolutist hold that moral rules are frequently self-evident in the same way that mathematical truth is self evident. We don't invent morality; we discover it like we discover multiplication tables." "Morality is universal. Moral rules are not arbitrary and personal but are public, applying equally to all people in relevantly similar situations. If a specific act is wrong for one person, then it is equally wrong for another."

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Sure, no problem. These are excerpts from the book, "Relativism (Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air)", by Beckwith and Koukl.

"There are two ways for something to be true: it can be subjectively true or it can be objectively true." "Subjective truths are based on internal preferences and change according to our whims. Objective truths, in contrast, are realities in the external world that we discover and cannot be changed by our internal feelings." "Moral relativism is a type of subjectivism. It holds that moral truths are preferences much like our taste in ice cream."

"Moral relativism is contrasted with moral absolutism, which can mean different things. Minimally, moral absolutism holds that a moral rule is true regardless of whether anyone believes it." "Absolutist hold that moral rules are frequently self-evident in the same way that mathematical truth is self evident. We don't invent morality; we discover it like we discover multiplication tables." "Morality is universal. Moral rules are not arbitrary and personal but are public, applying equally to all people in relevantly similar situations. If a specific act is wrong for one person, then it is equally wrong for another."

that definitely leaves the

" and how one verifies that they are correct objective standards."

part of the question what do you have for that?

 

[Freodin]

That's why some cultures believe raping women is ok. Some cultures believe killing is ok. Each culture decides what is right and what is wrong. This is Moral Relativism and it is a dangerous moral system. Morals are not subjective to the culture or individual, they are objective and true for everyone. If rape and killing is wrong for one culture or individual, then it is wrong for all cultures and individuals.

(Emphasis mine)

I find it interesting that you came back to the generic "killing" here, instead of the "murder" that we talked about previously.

Perhaps when you understand the difference between these two concepts, you will see the flaw in your reasoning.

"Killing" is an objective act. It is clear cut. The ending of a life by an agent. If there was an objective moral truth about "killing", it would be as precisely defined.

But it isn't. The same moral system that claims to be "objective" and "absolute" - yours! - gives rules and situations and changes for when it is ok to kill, who might kill, in which situation, what person. It has to introduce a new term "murder", meant to be an unjustified killing, to distinguish these situations from all the justified killings that it lists.
To take a excerpt from the book you quoted: "If a specific act is wrong for one person, then it is equally wrong for another."
And now think of the dozends of examples where the moral system that you claim is absolute breaks this rule. Do I have to give some?

This is relative morals, subjective morals. It is not based on personal whim. It is based on the personal (and interpersonal) interpretation of objective reality.

There is no other way for a person to make a moral judgement.

 

[Belk]

Sure, no problem. These are excerpts from the book, "Relativism (Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air)", by Beckwith and Koukl.

"There are two ways for something to be true: it can be subjectively true or it can be objectively true." "Subjective truths are based on internal preferences and change according to our whims. Objective truths, in contrast, are realities in the external world that we discover and cannot be changed by our internal feelings." "Moral relativism is a type of subjectivism. It holds that moral truths are preferences much like our taste in ice cream."

"Moral relativism is contrasted with moral absolutism, which can mean different things. Minimally, moral absolutism holds that a moral rule is true regardless of whether anyone believes it." "Absolutist hold that moral rules are frequently self-evident in the same way that mathematical truth is self evident. We don't invent morality; we discover it like we discover multiplication tables." "Morality is universal. Moral rules are not arbitrary and personal but are public, applying equally to all people in relevantly similar situations. If a specific act is wrong for one person, then it is equally wrong for another."

So, is this just an intro and you plan on answering my questions in a series of posts? Because you said "Sure, no problem" and then proceeded to post an excerpt from a book that in no way addressed my questions so I'm a bit confused.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

2 negatives = a positive


so why 2 wrongs can not make = right

 

[blarg the 2nd]

um whats -6 + -3?

all men should be killed + all dogs should be killed = all mean and dogs dead = good?

 

[dcyates]

Obviously there's been a LOT of discussion here before my arrival to this thread, but just in case this hasn't already been mentioned...

Personally, I'm fairly convinced that Nietzsche was the only true atheist -- at least of those whose writings and thoughts we're aware of. From what I can tell, he's the only one to have genuinely come to terms with the fact that if God is dead, then there is no firm, objective basis on which to determine right from wrong; that, in fact, such concepts as 'right' and 'wrong' are in the end meaningless. Rather, man must go 'beyond good and evil', and decide that which is of most benefit to oneself. (Actually, not 'man' generically, but rather the ruler of men must go beyond good and evil.)

Of course all cultures and civilizations have formulated their own moral or ethical codes, but we don't have to scratch too far below the surface to find that, as a result, these rules made life quite ruthless, nasty, and mean. They all naturally benefited the powerful ruling class most of all, and those who claim that the disparity between the few 'haves' and the many 'have nots' is greater now than ever before, obviously don't know very much of history. (In point of fact, the gulf between the two is smaller now than ever before -- and that by a long shot.)

Truthfully, the world today is so thoroughly saturated with the influence of the Judeo-Christian ethic, that we cannot even begin to appreciate what life would be like without it. Atheists can claim all they like that, without God and the Bible, our ethical standards would be at least as high, if not even higher. In his debates with theists, Christopher Hitchens likes to challenge his opponents to come up with a moral precept that could not have been arrived at through reason alone. He then enjoys it even more to declare that no one has come up with one yet.
First of all, it's a nonsensical demand from the outset: the theist is being asked to prove a negative.
Second, naturally there are logical reasons behind all ethical precepts. But it remains that not all were implemented apart from in those areas influenced by divine revelation. E.g. there are certainly sound logical reasons behind the sabbath day of rest, but just as certainly this principle was not implemented anywhere else but within Judeo-Christendom.
There are logical reasons behind recognizing the social equality of both males and females, but it's not by accident that it was only in nations with a significant Christian heritage that such a value was ever enshrined. If there is anywhere else in the ancient world where can be found words to the effect that "God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God did he create it, male and female he created them" (Gen 1.27), I have yet to see them.
Another example would be, in every ancient law code that I've come across, there are demands that anyone who finds a fugitive slave is to capture them and return them to their owner. The punishment prescribed for failure to comply with this was no less than death (and a small reward was offered to those did so). This is in stark contrast to the teaching of Deuteronomy 23.16-17, which requires: "If a slave has escaped from his master and taken refuge with you, you are not to hand him back to his master." Not only that, but it further commands: "Allow him to stay with you, in whichever place suits him best among your settlements; do not mistreat him."
All things considered, the Bible's moral codes are positively enlightened when compared with all others.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Personally, I'm fairly convinced that Nietzsche was the only true atheist

No, you just happen to agree with him about life as an atheist. One can be fully an atheist and disagree with Nietzsche and yourself about atheism. As difficult as that might be for you to believe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dcyates]

No, you just happen to agree with him about life as an atheist. One can be fully an atheist and disagree with Nietzsche and yourself about atheism. As difficult as that might be for you to believe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

My goodness, there's no need to get snarky right off the bat.

I gave the reason for my assertion (re: Nietzsche being the only true atheist); that he faced the fact more than any other atheist I've either read or heard of that without God there exists no objective basis for morality. It's as Dostoyevsky wrote: if there is no God, anything goes. If somebody more powerful, or more cunning, or more quick than somebody else can thus manage to bash them over the head and rob them blind, who are you to say he shouldn't? Well, ultimately, you better be somebody more powerful and cunning than he, or you may be next. Sure, you might be able to get the proper authorities involved, but that's merely getting more powerful people to aid you. What if they don't want to? What if they decide to side with the attacker? You can perhaps appeal to the very top authority: the president, the prime minister, the king, etc. But again, that's simply somebody more powerful yet. It's simply more powerful men telling less powerful men what to do. In the end, it's a case of 'might makes right'. Those places where that's pretty much the state of things are all generally pretty lousy places to live.
On the other hand, it's again not by accident that all the best, freest, wealthiest, and healthiest places to live on the planet are those with a significant Christian heritage. (Heck, even the constitution of Japan was written by a Jesuit priest!)
Most atheists want to remove religion from the public square, and some even want to see it disappear altogether. I say, be careful what you wish for. Because if you get it, you'd better pray that either you're the most powerful guy around, or that the ethics of the guy who is just happens to closely mirror that of the Judeo-Christian ethic. (But then again, who would you be praying to?)

 

[quatona]

I gave the reason for my assertion (re: Nietzsche being the only true atheist); that he faced the fact more than any other atheist I've either read or heard of that without God there exists no objective basis for morality.

This atheist faces the fact that even with a God there exists no objective basis for morality.

It's as Dostoyevsky wrote: if there is no God, anything goes.

And since the world very much looks like "anything goes" can we conclude that there is no God?

 

[Belk]

My goodness, there's no need to get snarky right off the bat.

I gave the reason for my assertion (re: Nietzsche being the only true atheist); that he faced the fact more than any other atheist I've either read or heard of that without God there exists no objective basis for morality.

As may be, however, since atheism has but a single defining characteristic your charge based on other characteristics seems rather odd.

It's as Dostoyevsky wrote: if there is no God, anything goes. If somebody more powerful, or more cunning, or more quick than somebody else can thus manage to bash them over the head and rob them blind, who are you to say he shouldn't? Well, ultimately, you better be somebody more powerful and cunning than he, or you may be next. Sure, you might be able to get the proper authorities involved, but that's merely getting more powerful people to aid you. What if they don't want to? What if they decide to side with the attacker? You can perhaps appeal to the very top authority: the president, the prime minister, the king, etc. But again, that's simply somebody more powerful yet. It's simply more powerful men telling less powerful men what to do. In the end, it's a case of 'might makes right'. Those places where that's pretty much the state of things are all generally pretty lousy places to live.

Yes, but you have one of two options as far as I can see with regards to God. The first being that God has decided morality, in which case it is just the ultimate expression of might makes right. The second being that there exists a morality that is external to God and he has simply passed it along to us.

On the other hand, it's again not by accident that all the best, freest, wealthiest, and healthiest places to live on the planet are those with a significant Christian heritage. (Heck, even the constitution of Japan was written by a Jesuit priest!)
Most atheists want to remove religion from the public square, and some even want to see it disappear altogether. I say, be careful what you wish for. Because if you get it, you'd better pray that either you're the most powerful guy around, or that the ethics of the guy who is just happens to closely mirror that of the Judeo-Christian ethic. (But then again, who would you be praying to?)

Wow, really? All the best, freest, and healthiest places on earth are based on a christian heritage? Except for the ones that are not in any way connected with a christian heritage but we will make excuses for those.

Sorry but this just seems like a bunch of unsupported assertions to me. I think your conformation bias is showing.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

This atheist faces the fact that even with a God there exists no objective basis for morality.

And since the world very much looks like "anything goes" can we conclude that there is no God?
[/color][/b]

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Wow, really? All the best, freest, and healthiest places on earth are based on a christian heritage? Except for the ones that are not in any way connected with a christian heritage but we will make excuses for those.

Sorry but this just seems like a bunch of unsupported assertions to me. I think your conformation bias is showing.

Statistics don't exactly help us(Christians) in that regard. Which is ok. I'd still want to live in the Netherlands or Denmark if I could stand the weather.