Does morality exist without God?

[selfinflikted]

This is incorrect. Morality is not subjective. Morality is not an internal preference that changes according to our whims. Moral rules are not arbitrary and personal but are objective and cannot be changed be our internal feelings. Moral rules are self evident and apply equally to all regardless of whether anyone believes them.

I couldn't disagree more.

 

[TomZzyzx]

No, it means Hitler's opinions were a dangerous world view.

The fact he may or may not have been a moral relativist was irrelevant. He would have held the exact same beliefs as a moral absolutist as well. It's all about what he attributes his moral code to.

Hitler's opinions, beliefs and actions are all determined by his morality, or in his case lack of morality.

The fact that he was a moral relativist is relevant since what I am talking about is morality and moral relativism.

Absolutist hold that moral rules are self evident, not invented. Morality is discovered like math is. If he was a moral absolutist he would have believed that killing innocent human beings was wrong.

 

[selfinflikted]

Ah. Now I see what the problem is. Tom, you are confusing moral absolutism with moral universalism.

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is incorrect. Morality is not subjective. Morality is not an internal preference that changes according to our whims. Moral rules are not arbitrary and personal but are objective and cannot be changed be our internal feelings. Moral rules are self evident and apply equally to all regardless of whether anyone believes them.

We understand what your position is. However you have not yet justified your position. You have not demonstrated that there is one singular proper, unchangeable moral code.

You haven't ever listed the source of this code, or how you know it's there. You are just asserting that it exists.

Please explain how you know what you know... otherwise you can't possibly expect anyone else to agree with your viewpoint.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Ah. Now I see what the problem is. Tom, you are confusing moral absolutism with moral universalism.

My point is only that morality is objective and not subjective. And that moral relativism is a dangerous view to believe in.

I'm not trying to convince any one that moral absolutism or moral universalism is the correct view.

 

[TomZzyzx]

We understand what your position is. However you have not yet justified your position. You have not demonstrated that there is one singular proper, unchangeable moral code.

You haven't ever listed the source of this code, or how you know it's there. You are just asserting that it exists.

Please explain how you know what you know... otherwise you can't possibly expect anyone else to agree with your viewpoint.

My position is that since morality is objective and not subjective then there has to be a moral law giver. Someone who has given us moral rules to live by.

Also, since morality is not subjective then moral relativism is a dangerous view to hold, and that relativism does not even qualify as an ethical system.

 

[selfinflikted]

My point is only that morality is objective and not subjective. And that moral relativism is a dangerous view to believe in.

I'm not trying to convince any one that moral absolutism or moral universalism is the correct view.

But that's the thing. You are saying that morality is objective, but you haven't shown how this is true. In fact, I do not believe it is objective. Different societies with differing moral values attest to the position that morality is in fact, not objective or universal.

 

[quatona]

My point is only that morality is objective and not subjective.

Even if we´d assume for the sake of the argument that morality is objective you´d still have the problem of demonstrating that your particular morality is congruent with the objective morality we´d assume to exist. I.e. that apart from being a moral objectivist you happen to be in hold of moral objectivity.

 

[TomZzyzx]

But that's the thing. You are saying that morality is objective, but you haven't shown how this is true. In fact, I do not believe it is objective. Different societies with differing moral values attest to the position that morality is in fact, not objective or universal.

My position is that since morality is objective and not subjective then there has to be a moral law giver. Someone who has given us moral rules to live by.

And since morality is not subjective then moral relativism is a dangerous view to hold. Also, relativism does not even qualify as an ethical system.

Again, it's not the societies that have the moral values it's the people within the society that have the values, whether right or wrong.

Just because people with different moral values believe that their's are true does not mean that they are both true.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Hitler's opinions, beliefs and actions are all determined by his morality, or in his case lack of morality.

The fact that he was a moral relativist is relevant since what I am talking about is morality and moral relativism.

Absolutist hold that moral rules are self evident, not invented. Morality is discovered like math is. If he was a moral absolutist he would have believed that killing innocent human beings was wrong.

No, that's incorrect.

What you and I consider to be Hitlers lack of morality... Hitler, and many people in Germany in the '30s and '40s considered to be moral and just.

And even if he was a moral relativist, it does not matter. If he believed his morality was divinely inspired, or was the "one true moral code", he was a moral absolutist. You just happen to disagree with what he considered to be universally held moral truths.

How he justifies his beliefs does not matter. Who really cares if he thought there was a universal moral code in line with his beliefs or not? His actions were equally dangerous no matter how he attributed it.

Hitler argued that the racial superiority of whites was self evident due to the stronger, more advanced and better organized civilizations that white people have built throughout history. That's how European colonialism was justified, and that's the same way Hitler justified his racial beliefs.

If he was a moral absolutist, he would believe that the universal code of morals said it was moral to kill or displace sub-human people so that racially pure people could have more living space, and thrive bettering civilization as a whole.

---

What you're failing to recognize is that people don't have to agree with what you believe to be a moral truth, in order to be a moral absolutist.

They can believe whatever they want to. They can believe that mass genocide is just dandy, and as long as they believe that is in line with a universal moral code, they are a moral absolutist.

They can even make the same argument in defense that you have... They could argue that once upon a time, society thought killing people with freckles was wrong. However, since then we have learned more about universal moral truth, and found that it was never moral to allow people with freckles to live, and therefore they should all be put to death now.



You see, it can work both ways. Moral absolutism is no more or no less dangerous than moral relativism. The only difference is what you believe your morals are derived from, a higher power, or the perception of society at large. But remember, a higher power could possibly advocate murder or rape as well.... so it is not any more free from danger to society than relativism could be.

 

[selfinflikted]

My position is that since morality is objective and not subjective then there has to be a moral law giver. Someone who has given us moral rules to live by.

Right. You've said that, and we get it. But, you're putting the cart before the horse. You must first establish that morality is objective. After that, we can discuss the 'law giver.' But you haven't substantiated the premise from which you draw your conclusion.

Just because people with different moral values believe that their's are true does not mean that they are both true.

And?

 

[Dave Ellis]

My position is that since morality is objective and not subjective then there has to be a moral law giver. Someone who has given us moral rules to live by.

Also, since morality is not subjective then moral relativism is a dangerous view to hold, and that relativism does not even qualify as an ethical system.

So you are starting with a presupposition that morality is objective, and then insert an unproven moral lawgiver to justify your presupposition.

That does not even start to justify your claim.

I asked how do you determine that morality is in fact objective. First you have to show how you know that to be true, then we can talk about the universal law giver.

 

[Freodin]

My position is that since morality is objective and not subjective then there has to be a moral law giver. Someone who has given us moral rules to live by.

Also, since morality is not subjective then moral relativism is a dangerous view to hold, and that relativism does not even qualify as an ethical system.

That is an internal contradiction in your positions.

You said that moral rules are self-evident, as maths, and that we only "discover" them. You also said that moral rules are not arbitrary.

But any "given" rules are NOT self-evident and are, if that is the sole cause of their existence, arbitrary.

So if morals were indeed self-evident (which I deny, BTW) and non-arbitrary , that would exclude the possibility of a "law-giver".

 

[Common Sense]

Without God, we wouldn't have morality that dosen't mean only Christians have good morals. In fact it dosen't mean all Christians have the best of morals.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Without God, we wouldn't have morality that dosen't mean only Christians have good morals. In fact it dosen't mean all Christians have the best of morals.

And how do you know this?

 

[Common Sense]

I don't know it Dave, I believe it, it's my opinion. If your familiar with the Bible you will know there are many examples of great principles and moral values, to take just one,"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Can you imagine the world if everyone followed that?

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't know it Dave, I believe it, it's my opinion. If your familiar with the Bible you will know there are many examples of great principles and moral values, to take just one,"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Can you imagine the world if everyone followed that?

Sure, that would be great.... however that philosophy existed long before the bible was written.

The moral values found in the bible, pre-date the bible. Furthermore, they are also found in secular sources in the present day without all the examples of immorality and superstition in the Bible.

Any good the Bible has to offer society, can also be found elsewhere. That is proven by the fact that societies with no knowledge of the Bible generally live under the same general ethical guidelines as anyone else.

 

[someguy14]

Sure, that would be great.... however that philosophy existed long before the bible was written.

So, as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise, essentially stands firm through every age. Love thy neighbor as thyself.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Right. You've said that, and we get it. But, you're putting the cart before the horse. You must first establish that morality is objective. After that, we can discuss the 'law giver.' But you haven't substantiated the premise from which you draw your conclusion.

And?

Ok, where does your morality come from?

 

[TomZzyzx]

So you are starting with a presupposition that morality is objective, and then insert an unproven moral lawgiver to justify your presupposition.

That does not even start to justify your claim.

I asked how do you determine that morality is in fact objective. First you have to show how you know that to be true, then we can talk about the universal law giver.

Ok, where does your morality come from?