Does morality exist without God?

[ebia]

Theists =/= Theistic Morality

As for Deontology, not quite. I am referring to why one might see something as wrong.

E.g:

A General Deontologist might say that lying is always wrong because the act is inherently dishonest.

A Theistic Morality Deontologist would say that lying is always wrong 'cos God says so.

Whilst both say that lying is always wrong, the reasons are different and these reasons matter.

Is "because it is" really a better answer than "because someone else says so"? They are both basically "you have to follow the rule with no Justifcation"

If you want to define "theistic morality" as a subset of deontology that's fine so long as you recognise that it no longer covers most serious Christian thinking on ethics

 

[Skavau]

Is "because it is" really a better answer than "because someone else says so"?

Yes, I think so. At least in a moral sense.

In terms of morality you cannot divorce a prohibition of an act with actual moral reasons for that act. You necessarily have to appeal to unsavoury elements of the act. If you do not then you are not making a moral claim.

They are both basically "you have to follow the rule with no Justifcation"

No, both offer justification.

One is just comparatively more relevant and less troublesome than the other. The individual who sees lying as always wrong due to the nature of lying is objective.

The individual who views lying as wrong just because God says so is subject to any change from God. God could suddenly permit lying and he'd be fine with it.

That is the problem I refer to.

If you want to define "theistic morality" as a subset of deontology that's fine so long as you recognise that it no longer covers most serious Christian thinking on ethics

It can be otherwise known amongst Christians as "divine command theory" but I like to sneer at and demean it. It represents a not so insignificant chunk of Christian thought.

For example, it is probably the reason why the idea of permanent torment in hell* is accepted by so many Christians. Without the fall back on "Because God says so" it just would not be so prevalent.

*Yes, I know not all Christians believe in hell/believe hell to be permanent.

 

[ebia]

Yes, I think so. At least in a moral sense.

In terms of morality you cannot divorce a prohibition of an act with actual moral reasons for that act. You necessarily have to appeal to unsavoury elements of the act. If you do not then you are not making a moral claim.

Thats basically a claim of consequentialism is right and the others wrong. You can make the claim, but...

No, both offer justification.

One is just comparatively more relevant and less troublesome than the other. The individual who sees lying as always wrong due to the nature of lying is objective.

The individual who views lying as wrong just because God says so is subject to any change from God. God could suddenly permit lying and he'd be fine with it.

what exactly do you mean by objective?

"because it is" is not a justification at all.

something doesn't cease to be objective just because it might change.

That is the problem I refer to.

It can be otherwise known amongst Christians as "divine command theory" but I like to sneer at and demean it. It represents a not so insignificant chunk of Christian thought.

Tacit deontology is massive chunk of all popular thought. most of the rest being half-thought-threw consequentialism. But I would strongly suggest that its not the mainstream of serious Christian ethics.

 

[Skavau]

Thats basically a claim of consequentialism is right and the others wrong. You can make the claim, but...

Actually, it isn't just about arguing for consequentialism. Deontological claims can be fine based in solid rational. That God says so isn't a moral rational by definition. It is just following orders.

If you're fine with that, sure but it is what it is.

what exactly do you mean by objective?

"because it is" is not a justification at all.

By objective they've attempted an argument, however poorly for why an action is wrong based on reasons related to that action.

The 'theistic morality' is grounded in subjectivity. Mere appeal to opinion.

something doesn't cease to be objective just because it might change.

Then 'objective' in a moral sense has no credible meaning.

How do you distinguish between objective and subjective and does it matter if something is subjective as to objective?

Tacit deontology is massive chunk of all popular thought. most of the rest being half-thought-threw consequentialism. But I would strongly suggest that its not the mainstream of serious Christian ethics.

I would suggest then that the Christian ethics you refer to can be just as credibly concluded and maintained as easily by a non-Christian.

 

[Loudmouth]

OK, I get my morals from God's word, the bible.

So your morals are based on the writings of men. How do you know that those commandments are moral?

 

[ebia]

Actually, it isn't just about arguing for consequentialism. Deontological claims can be fine based in solid rational.

Like what? If a set of rules are the starting point then they aren't based on anything.

By objective they've attempted an argument, however poorly for why an action is wrong based on reasons related to that action.

1.That's not what objective means.
2. "Because it just is" is not an argument.

The 'theistic morality' is grounded in subjectivity. Mere appeal to opinion.

Then 'objective' in a moral sense has no credible meaning.

How do you distinguish between objective and subjective and does it matter if something is subjective as to objective?

I would suggest then that the Christian ethics you refer to can be just as credibly concluded and maintained as easily by a non-Christian.

A non Christian can off course hold to a virtue ethic viewpoint - Aristotle wasn't a Christian after all. But a Christian ethicist is going to have a distinct take on what the virtues are and how it pans out.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Christian belief isMorality is from God.The Bible also says that God wrote His law on our hearts (Romans 2:15). This is conscience. In other words, even without God’s revelation in the commandments, we intuitively know God’s law based on the fact that we were created in His image.Do you believe you have a Conscience? And if you do where do you believe that conscience came from?

How did you determine that God's Law is moral? Or is there no way to know if it is moral or not, other than to just claim it is moral and never challenge it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly, absolutes in YOUR mind not from the mind of God. You have absolutes in your mind, your neighbor has different absolutes and so on.

Doesn't change the fact that my neighbor can be wrong.

When you believe in one supreme being where he is author of absolute morality and judgement then all who believe in him have the same moral teachings and laws.

So morality is relative to how popular it is?

How can I say that God is holy, God is and always has been, God is our creator and not believe that he has perfect morality and is not all wise? Criteria? Read his word.

You can believe the Moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't make it so. Morality is not relative to your beliefs. You are now the one pushing post-modernism, not I.

God's laws are absolute.

But are they moral?

You are skewing the term relativism cause God's laws never change they are not relative to changing government or societies or anything of this world.

But are they moral?

Now that statement is a perfect example of relativism. There are no absolutes.

Precisely. That is what theism is. It is a claimed perfect set of morality that is relative to the deity you believe in. It is relativism in the extreme.

In my belief there is one God, one book {the bible) and thats my beliefs.

Others have different beliefs and different gods, and still claim to have the perfect morality like you do. Relativism at it's most extreme.

 

[ebia]

How did you determine that God's Law is moral? Or is there no way to know if it is moral or not, other than to just claim it is moral and never challenge it?

How does anyone decide what is moral?

 

[Loudmouth]

How does anyone decide what is moral?

By using empathy and reason. The whole point is that we don't need a deity telling us what is and isn't moral. We are capable of that on our own. "Because Zeus says so" is not a valid argument for a commandment being moral.

 

[ebia]

By using empathy and reason.

Reason from what? How are you reasoning? What ethical framework are you starting from?

 

[Loudmouth]

Reason from what? How are you reasoning? What ethical framework are you starting from?

Reasoning using basic logic. Empathy allows me to understand that other people feel pain and injustice in the same way I do. Reason allows me to understand how my actions will result in pain and injustice. Reason also allows me to understand how to prevent pain and injustice where I can. This forms a very simple yet important ethical framework based on shared empathy and shared reasoning.

 

[ebia]

Reasoning using basic logic. Empathy allows me to understand that other people feel pain and injustice in the same way I do. Reason allows me to understand how my actions will result in pain and injustice. Reason also allows me to understand how to prevent pain and injustice where I can. This forms a very simple yet important ethical framework based on shared empathy and shared reasoning.

I'm looking for you to spell out exactly what your starting point is. What ethical framework are you working in? Your comments seem to suggest that you think a major area of philosophy that some of the finest minds have grappled with reduces to the bleedin obvious.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm looking for you to spell out exactly what your starting point is.

Empathy and reason, as I have already explained.

What ethical framework are you working in? Your comments seem to suggest that you think a major area of philosophy that some of the finest minds have grappled with reduces to the bleedin obvious.

Empathy and reason have never been simple.

 

[ebia]

Empathy and reason, as I have already explained.

Empathy and reason have never been simple.

Your're being asked for specifics and you continue to repeated vague generalities

I'll ask you what I asked Skavau - have you studied ethics at all?

 

[Tinker Grey]

"Empathy" seems like a specific answer to me. Maybe you could try refining your question.

 

[ebia]

"Empathy" seems like a specific answer to me. Maybe you could try refining your question.

Empathy tells one something about the effect that the consequences of an action have on another. But how does one get from that to deciding the morality of the action. Assuming one perceives morality as residing in the action.

 

[Loudmouth]

Empathy tells one something about the effect that the consequences of an action have on another.

That's not quite it. Empathy is the ability to sense the emotions another person is having. We use reason to figure out what caused those emotions.

But how does one get from that to deciding the morality of the action. Assuming one perceives morality as residing in the action.

You are able to determine for yourself what causes you harm and emotional distress. Using empathy, you are able to determine that others have those same emotions. Using reason, you can determine which of your actions results in harm and emotional distress in others. If you do not want these things done to you then it is obvious that you should not do them to others, using reason and logic.

 

[Skavau]

I get the impression ebia is insisting that we pin ourselves down in some recognised ethical theory. If we don't and answer as we are he'll opine that we obviously know nothing about ethics.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your're being asked for specifics and you continue to repeated vague generalities

No, I have been asked for a framework which requires vague generalities.

I'll ask you what I asked Skavau - have you studied ethics at all?

Yes, have you?