Does morality exist without God?

[Dave Ellis]

It is you who is incorrect. Society says relativism is possibly the worst view of Relativism there is. If society says relativism was true one society could never say what another society is doing was wrong.

Wrong

This is just simply poorly thought out logic. Any society can say whatever they want to. If there is a society that conflicts with another societies accepted moral code, they have every right to say what is going on is immoral.

You're trying to make the case that two societies with some differing moral views are not allowed to criticize each other just because they don't accept the idea there's "one true more code". There is just simply no logic to your argument.

If one society believes that rape, murder or even ethnic cleansing was right for them then no other society can tell them that they are wrong. In fact if society says relativism was true no one on earth would even think that what another society was doing was wrong.

Going down the same point, you are factually incorrect. A society that believes Rape, Murder and Ethnic Cleansing is immoral, not only is allowed to think a society that permits such things are wrong... They would by necessity think that the other society is immoral.

Just because we believe different societies have different moral codes, we don't accept those codes as moral, or right and by no way do we have to respect what they consider moral belief.

No one would have been able to tell Germany what they were doing in the 1930's was wrong. In fact no one would have said that slavery was wrong if a society said it was right for them. Society says relativism is in fact amoral.

If you lived at any point of human history up until the mid 1800's, you may not have seen a moral objection to slavery. In fact there's another thread on this very forum in which many Christians are trying to make a case that the slavery outlined in the bible is perfectly moral. That says to me, that people are still willing to accept the moral validity of slavery even in the present day, under certain circumstances.

Likewise, if you lived in Germany in the 1930/1940s, you too may have bought into what the Nazis were doing. Antisemitism was still acceptable by Christian standards, and was widespead even in the United States. The images of the Holocaust were a major catalyst in showing people the price such beliefs have, and made it far more acceptable to be Jewish. "Christian Values" in the 1920s, became "Judeo-Christian" Values by the 1950s.

The morality of the society shifted, in part because we were exposed to a far more extreme version of our previously held immoral (but formerly considered moral) beliefs that Jews were Christ-Killers and whatnot.

There is no such thing as moral relativism becoming "more and more moral over time". In fact moral relativist discover objective moral truths over time and thus come to realize that rape, torture, slavery and cannibalism were always morally wrong.

What is a moral truth, and what is the absolute moral code?

If so, what things in present day society which we accept as perfectly moral will at some point in the future be considered backwards and immoral? Going by history, there's bound to be far more than one thing we presently believe to moral that actually isn't. And in that case, is it still moral for us?

If society says relativism was true then the black civil rights movement would have been the immoral stance and would have been stopped for going against society. Instead it showed that the society, in this case the United States, was morally wrong. So much for society say relativism.

No, actually if absolutism is true, then the blacks would not have been able to change the status-quo. That's what absolutism is....

Their work shifted our perception of morality and lead us to widespead acceptance that black people are not any different than anyone else, apart from the amount of pigmentation in their skin. Our morals shifted dramatically over the last century in that regard. Can you imagine a black president in 1912? That is a demonstration of how a societies morals are not set in stone to one true moral code.

Most societies are made up of mostly moral people. Moral people because they believe in objective moral truths not because they are moral relativist. Most people who descend into lawlessness and barbarism are not mentally ill, instead they believe that what they are doing is ok because they believe morality is whatever they think is right for them. And this is why moral relativism is extremely dangerous.

Again, you are focusing on the individual, not the society. Accepted morals are not dictated by individuals, making your point null and void. In a world of absolute morals, or a world of moral relativism, you're still going to have a segment of people rape and murder others. In both societies, those people would be viewed as immoral.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There are general standards such as not killing each other or stealing from each other.

As for religious people who violate those morals, obviously they are ignoring them, not conducting themselves in line with "One True Morals" established by their religion.

What about when a religion practices something perfectly in line with their holy scripture and moral code, but is still viewed as offensive and immoral by society at large?

Usually when a Christian, or Muslim or whatnot commits an atrocity, they're right there with the verses in the Bible or Koran that backs up exactly what they're doing. In the interest of not being too offensive, I will use a fairly tame example.

Fred Phelps pickets the funerals of Gay people, and others (who going by scripture) are guilty of sin and going to Hell.

As much as I think the guy is a vile human being, I do have to give him credit for the fact that he is consistent, and backs up everything he does using the bible. He also justifies his protests as drawing attention to what happens to sinners when they die, and hopes it helps inspire people living in sin to repent and get saved. Using his twisted morality, I can see where he thinks he is being a force for good in the world.

Going by biblical scripture, Gays are an abomination, sinful and are going to hell. Ironically, the Christian churches who accept gays, even to appoint them as clergymen are in violation of their own holy book.

So in this example, the more moral position (from my point of view) is taken by the churches violating biblical code, and the immoral position is taken by the guy who is following scripture to the letter in hopes of preventing further sin.

So in your opinion, does the guy actually following the scripture of the "one true moral source" (The Bible) have a moral, or immoral position?

The Bible was also written by the hand of man. I'd say there was a bit of bias there. Also a product of the times. The veneer of civilization is a thin one on human beings.

I can see how your second paragraph would possibly answer the first part of my response.

So, here is my rebuttal to this point:

If the Bible is written by the hands of man, and was a product of it's time... then it is not a divinely inspired work, it is ultimately a man-made work either in full or in part.

So how can the one true moral code taught by religion (in your case Christianity) actually be a absolutely correct moral code, when it was written by men 2,000-3,000 years ago. What was accepted as moral in that time is what's reflected in that book.

Many biblical teachings are immoral by today's standards, so which way is it? Is the bible an authoritative moral source and we have it wrong today.... or do we have a more enlightened moral view in modern society than the authors of the Bible had a few thousand years ago?

You can't make the claim that the bible teaches a set of "one true morals" then turn around and claim the book is written by man and may be imperfect. It's one way or the other.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Actually moral objectivism has been shown in it's extreme, and her name was Mother Terresa.

Mother Teresa did many good things, she also taught many immoral things.

Like many people, she meant well. But she wasn't perfect.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I must have misunderstood you. You mean Hitler is a good example of taking moral relativism to it's extreme. Since "he believed" what he was doing was good. Exactly what a moral relativist does.

No...

No matter whether morality is absolute or relative, Anyone doing anything would believe what are doing is good.

And to comment on your earlier post... Hitler did believe murder was wrong, assuming you're talking about murdering people who fit in with his ideology (i.e. White People, especially of German descent). But that's really not a whole lot different than the Catholic Churches historical view on non-believers either, Jews included.

Luckily Naziism was defeated, and Catholicism has lost much of it's power. Although it's still a very destructive force.

 

[RoadWarrior]

What about when a religion practices something perfectly in line with their holy scripture and moral code, but is still viewed as offensive and immoral by society at large?

Such as? I do not agree that people like Fred Phelps, Mohamed Atta or anyone else who cherry picks from religious texts while ignoring whole tracts to justify their actions is "perfectly in line with their holy scripture and moral code".

If the Bible is written by the hands of man, and was a product of it's time... then it is not a divinely inspired work, it is ultimately a man-made work either in full or in part.

So how can the one true moral code taught by religion (in your case Christianity) actually be a absolutely correct moral code

Disagreed that my statement automatically necessitates that it can't be divinely inspired. What it certainly means is that religious texts can be flawed due to the hand of man. If God wanted to leave us a perfect religious text, it would be written in the stars or on the Moon for all to see. Heck, we could even be genetically imprinted with the entire text on our memories. None of this happened, so the conclusion is either we're missing something, God has other designs or that the God of the Bible and other religious texts does not exist. What we can't do is rule out any of those possibilities.

As for the "one true moral code", I think we have divined parts of it, but not all of it. Cross-correlate the world's major religions and I think you will find some strong similarities. Obviously we don't all live by that code or, even if we try to do so, do not always conduct ourselves in such a manner.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Such as? I do not agree that people like Fred Phelps, Mohamed Atta or anyone else who cherry picks from religious texts while ignoring whole tracts to justify their actions is "perfectly in line with their holy scripture and moral code".

Are you saying Fred Phelps is taking the bible out of context, and that the bible is actually in favour of Homosexuality?

Disagreed that my statement automatically necessitates that it can't be divinely inspired. What it certainly means is that religious texts can be flawed due to the hand of man. If God wanted to leave us a perfect religious text, it would be written in the stars or on the Moon for all to see. Heck, we could even be genetically imprinted with the entire text on our memories. None of this happened, so the conclusion is either we're missing something, God has other designs or that the God of the Bible and other religious texts does not exist. What we can't do is rule out any of those possibilities.

If that's the case, how can you argue your one true moral code is not flawed? If the bible is not infallible, why should we accept the morals in there as flawless?

As for the "one true moral code", I think we have divined parts of it, but not all of it. Cross-correlate the world's major religions and I think you will find some strong similarities. Obviously we don't all live by that code or, even if we try to do so, do not always conduct ourselves in such a manner.

So in essence you are saying the bible has parts of the one true moral code in it.

Sure, I'll agree some teachings in the bible are generally moral in nature.

But how does that justify using the book, or the teachings of the religions that follow that book as "one true moral code" when even by your own argument, they don't have the whole picture, and parts of the picture that they do have are flawed.

If your argument is correct, even if moral absolutes exist, the absolute moral code has never been revealed to us. That leaves societies to decide for themselves what is moral, meaning the world in reality operates on moral relativism rather than moral absolutism.

 

[Common Sense]

Christians don't believe homosexuality is anything other than sin, there is no disagreement anywhere in the world among Christians who use Gods word as a guide. Thats one you can't twist no matter how hard you try. He made that as clear as fresh air.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Christians don't believe homosexuality is anything other than sin, there is no disagreement anywhere in the world among Christians who use Gods word as a guide. Thats one you can't twist no matter how hard you try. He made that as clear as fresh air.

You don't know your fellow (liberal) Christians that well.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

Yes someone who believes morality is objective, not moral relativism which is someone who believes morality is whatever they believe it to be.

You are mixing two different categories here.

Just stating "morality is objective" does not tell you what is moral.

For example, Hitler believed that killing subhuman people was right. That is an objective moral statement. You believe that murdering people is wrong. That also is an objective moral statement.

But both statements are "what you believe it to be"... you believe one thing, Hitler another.

 

[Freodin]

You don't know your fellow (liberal) Christians that well.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Notice: "Christians who use God's word as a guide". All those self-proclaimed (liberal) Christians have discarded what God's word clearly say and thus are not really Christians, but.... bla bla, you know the script.


BTW, my last post to you seems to have been lost in the following discussion, but I still would like to see your answer. So to repeat:

I have to ask: how do you define "ethical judgement" or "moral question"?

Or "right" and "wrong", in the moral sense.

Oh, and this isn't only a question for Mark.... I'd like to see how our Christian defenders of absolute divine moral use these terms, as well.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What would you accept for a proof?

Ideally, the statement "I, Adolf Hitler, am a moral objectivist". Failing that, some clear statement that strongly implies that he takes such a position.

I don't see anything against the existence of a genocidal moral relativist (or other non-objectivist), so his actions are not a clear indication in themselves.

I wasn´t aware that there was any doubt about that.

Cool. Now you are.

From the top of my head I don´t recall any statement from him that suggested or implied that his morals were subjective (while I recall countless ones that come without any such qualifier). Just give me one, and my point will be disproven.

No, no, no. Sorry. You made the positive claim, and you have the burden of proof here.

I will just say that I am aware that Hitler gave some lip service to doing divine will, though (if this was honest) it is not clear that this makes his view of morality objective, since divine will can change or apply differently to different people. One could still end up with a de facto moral relativism where God places different moral expectations on different "races".

And, I think that this view needs to be counterbalanced by his worship of strength. It seemed that for him, might made a kind of right, though I'm not aware of him attempting to justify his actions as leader with anything remotely close to a philosophical argument.

For one cannot assume that God exists to help people who are too cowardly and too lazy to help themselves and think that God exists only to make up for the weakness of mankind. He does not exist for that purpose. He has always, at all times, blessed only those who were prepared to fight their own battles... -- Adolf Hitler

His view of the world seemed to be of different racial groups proving themselves through their strength and racial purity. He admired the Spartans, for instance, and commended modern day Greeks for their courage and disregard for death in battle. They are all justified in this, apparently even if they come into conflict with each other.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

Ideally, the statement "I, Adolf Hitler, am a moral objectivist". Failing that, some clear statement that strongly implies that he takes such a position.

I don't see anything against the existence of a genocidal moral relativist, so his actions are not a clear indication in themselves.



Cool. Now you are.



No, no, no. Sorry. You made the positive claim, and you have the burden of proof here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Perhaps I am getting my terms completely mixed here... but "moral relativism" was used in the sense of "if someone believes it is right, it is right".

Reading through various of Hitler's texts, I have never seen him express such a view. In contrast, he seems quite fixed in his views of what is right, allowing no opposition regardles of "what someone believes".

 

[someguy14]

Does morality exist without God?

Haha. God created all, friend.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Perhaps I am getting my terms completely mixed here... but "moral relativism" was used in the sense of "if someone believes it is right, it is right".

Reading through various of Hitler's texts, I have never seen him express such a view. In contrast, he seems quite fixed in his views of what is right, allowing no opposition regardles of "what someone believes".

Moral relativism doesn't mean you have to accept other people's beliefs as moral for them, or even respect their rights to hold those beliefs.

Basically, here it is in a nutshell:

Moral Absolutism is the belief that morality is dictated by one true set of morals (usually given by a God figure), that never can and never will change. If it's moral, it's moral for all time.

Moral relativism is the belief that a moral code is essentially set by the society at large, rather than an authority figure. Also, the perception of what is moral can change from time to time.

For example, slavery was once considered moral, where now it isn't.

Moral Absolutists would argue two ways:

1: Slavery was never moral because it is in violation of the "one true moral code"
2: Slavery is considered moral in the bible, and therefore still is moral even though we no longer practice it.

Moral relativists would argue:

1: Slavery was considered moral at the time in that society. Over time our morals have shifted, and we no longer accept it as a moral practice.


However, just because moral relativists believe what is considered moral can change as societies change, that does not mean that they must accept other versions of morality as valid.

If a moral relativist believes slavery is wrong (as I imagine the vast majority do), they would view any society that practices slavery as immoral. The fact that society believes slavery is morally just is irrelevant.

 

[someguy14]

For example, slavery was once considered moral, where now it isn't.

Haha. Think again. Slavery is prospering in America. It may try to hide, God shines His light and exposes it. You dont have "mammon" they throw you out in the cold to die. America is bleeding. Greed is the enemy and many choose to turn their eyes away and seek their own comfort. Every place that contains poor and suffering and those without enough is a failure. Gods judgement is not far off.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Haha. Think again. Slavery is prospering in America. It may try to hide, God shines His light and exposes it. You dont have "mammon" they throw you out in the cold to die. America is bleeding. Greed is the enemy and many choose to turn their eyes away and seek their own comfort. Every place that contains poor and suffering and those without enough is a failure. Gods judgement is not far off.

Thanks for the input, chief.

 

[someguy14]

Thanks for the input, chief.

Truth is the truth friend. Im cursed daily, God be merciful to little 'ol me.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Truth is the truth friend. Im cursed daily, God be merciful to little 'ol me.

I don't argue that the truth is the truth.

If you start talking about truth, then I'll agree with what you have to say. Until then, you're really ranting about a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with this thread.

We're talking about the existence of morality without God, try staying on topic or go find somewhere else to rant.

 

[someguy14]

I don't argue that the truth is the truth.

If you start talking about truth, then I'll agree with what you have to say. Until then, you're really ranting about a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with this thread.

We're talking about the existence of morality without God, try staying on topic or go find somewhere else to rant.

My greatest blessing I can give you, friend, is that God have mercy upon you. I am so poor, please forgive me.

 

[Dave Ellis]

My greatest blessing I can give you, friend, is that God have mercy upon you. I am so poor, please forgive me.

Thanks, and you're forgiven.