From Morality to God

[cvanwey]

It did not engage with the OP in a serious way. To respond would be to just restate the OP.

I believe it does though... Here's why...

If we concede that we all ultimately assert 'morals' as being 'objective/absolute', then to also assert there must be a God, does not solve the issue. It instead merely raises more questions, than to address or provide any plausible answers....

Again, let's assume an all powerful and uncaused cause exists.

1. Does might automatically make 'right'? I say 'no'
2. Does an existing creator being mean He must be 'right'? I say 'no'

You see, if you or I assert a moral conviction, and wish to ground this moral conviction as 'true', what is your standard for doing so? You then go right back to the two presented questions directly above.

This is why 'morals' are likely subjective, even if a creator exists.

Morals derive using the following methodologies - (unless you can add a 5th):

a. intuition/gut reaction/opinion/feelings
b. appealing to a consensus
c. consequentialism
d. 'God'

Options a, b, and c are obviously subjective, for obvious reasons. Option d. looks to beg question numbers 1 and 2 above.

Care to address now?

 

[muichimotsu]

No they aren't. This is just a matter of fact. You're ignoring human intentionality in a really bizarre way. Humans are perfectly capable of deciding that something ought to be the case without observing that it is the case. A parent can institute an entirely novel norm in the household: no television allowed for the children. There need not be any precedent for this, there need not be any pattern it is modeled after. It is possible for the parent to do this even if every one of his friends and family allow television for children. He has instituted a norm, "a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior."

Not all norms are descriptive. This is true even in less obvious cases. Laws are prescriptive norms, not descriptive norms, as ToL has pointed out with regard to the speed limit. The mental gymnastics required to ignore this fact are excessive.

Them being prescriptive doesn't mean they are necessarily right or even ontologically and semantically must be regarded solely as prescriptive rather than having a descriptive function alongside the idea of the ought element, which is only really valid if people accept it as binding and recognize the authority. And part of recognizing the authority is based in descriptive facts: if you go over that speed limit, you are statistically more likely to be in danger.

The descriptive and prescriptive aspects of a norm are both valid, merely that they need to be considered in terms of the semantics and epistemology respectively. Descriptively, a norm is based on facts that are there regardless of if the law was there or not, prescriptively, the norm is justified BY the facts and not just an authoritative assertion

There is a problem, however, in suggesting that the speed limit is in any meaningful way comparable to a moral principle about not violating human autonomy needlessly. The former is a societal norm enforced in regards to protecting every citizen from needless danger in automotive usage, the latter is more abstract in applying not only laws, but even moral principles in terms of limiting or allowing particular behaviors.

 

[Moral Orel]

The conjunction proves my point. There are two things here: a prescription and a description. They are joined by a conjunction.

To describe and to prescribe are different verbs. We could try to take an ambiguous piece of syntax, a sign that reads, "<= 55 mph." One might ask whether the sign means that this is what normally happens on the road, or whether the sign means that one is not allowed to exceed 55 mph. Apparently it could mean either. Could it mean both? I don't think so, and even if you argued that it means both you would be arguing that one sign has two meanings, not that the two meanings are equivalent.

The two meanings are intrinsically linked. You have to describe what you prescribe when you prescribe it. Saying "<=55mph" is a description of what the speed limit is and what you think it should be. I get suspicious with any of these apologetic arguments that choose words with more than one common usage and then switch between them interchangeably. ToL talks about laws and he talks about butter. He doesn't mean "a principle of human behavior" all the time does he?

So now we're at the point where I've acknowledged that people create principles. Okay, but the argument says we assume principles. No, I don't assume 55mph is already true, I decided it is.

Looking at the Cambridge, Webster's, and Oxford dictionaries along with the Online Etymology Dictionary, I don't think so. The word derives from the Latin word for a carpenter's square and signifies a rule or standard. It's not intrinsically prescriptive, but it is also not merely descriptive. It's not merely a descriptive or coincidental pattern, but an intentional pattern. To my mind the derived adjective 'normative' makes this more clear (Cambridge, Webster's, Oxford).

You don't think what? That people never say "this is the norm" unless they're talking about human behavior? Or you don't think it's misleading to switch between more than one usage of the same word instead of simply being more precise with your verbiage?

 

[zippy2006]

The two meanings are intrinsically linked. You have to describe what you prescribe when you prescribe it. Saying "<=55mph" is a description of what the speed limit is and what you think it should be. I get suspicious with any of these apologetic arguments that choose words with more than one common usage and then switch between them interchangeably. ToL talks about laws and he talks about butter. He doesn't mean "a principle of human behavior" all the time does he?

Yes, there is a link between the two meanings.

So now we're at the point where I've acknowledged that people create principles. Okay, but the argument says we assume principles. No, I don't assume 55mph is already true, I decided it is.

Yep, you two are certainly at that point.

You don't think what? That people never say "this is the norm" unless they're talking about human behavior? Or you don't think it's misleading to switch between more than one usage of the same word instead of simply being more precise with your verbiage?

I don't think the English meaning of norm is inherently descriptive or precludes a prescriptive sense.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yep, you two are certainly at that point.

Well I asked him, and he won't tell me, so maybe you know. When I prescribe 55mph as a principle, what principle must I assume?

 

[zippy2006]

Well I asked him, and he won't tell me, so maybe you know. When I prescribe 55mph as a principle, what principle must I assume?

This isn't my fight so I'm not going to get drawn in, but my answer would be that you are assuming principles like: excessive speed leads to car crashes, car crashes are bad, etc. For the rest you'll have to consult ToL.

 

[Moral Orel]

This isn't my fight so I'm not going to get drawn in, but my answer would be that you are assuming principles like: excessive speed leads to car crashes, car crashes are bad, etc. For the rest you'll have to consult ToL.

Like I said, I already asked him the same question about abortion and he won't answer. He regularly ignores posts unless he thinks he's got a winning point. But if you don't want to talk about this one I'll leave it be.

 

[zippy2006]

On topic, specifically from 12:42-14:42 (link). On the Postmodern aversion to absolute moral values:

 

[LightBearer]

It doesn't freeze the butter because it is built not to. That isn't why it's "normal" to not freeze the butter. It's "normal" because manufacturers are usually successful at building fridges the way they intend to.

Imagine if fridge manufacturers were inept and their fridges worked poorly and froze the butter most of the time. Their intent would be to make fridges that don't freeze the butter, but what is normal is frozen butter.

They're not though, they are not inept at building fridges that normally freeze butter. That's why it's normal to see un-frozen butter in a fridge. It's purposeful design.

 

[Moral Orel]

They're not though, they are not inept at building fridges that normally freeze butter. That's why it's normal to see un-frozen butter in a fridge. It's purposeful design.

Right. Butter is normally unfrozen in fridges because manufacturers are normally skilled. So what?

 

[Ophiolite]

I am claiming that when you make moral claims, you are assuming moral prescriptions. When you say something is right or wrong, you are assuming that there is a certain way the world ought to be. The rest of my argument can go from there.

This is from your post #27. I have not yet read beyond that, so if there are posts germane to my comments here please direct me to them.

When I say something is right or wrong, I am saying that if we do the "right" thing, certain benefits will accrue, such benefits generally accruing to a societal unit (family, nation, humanity) as much, or more than to the individual.
If we do something "wrong" then benefits will tend to accure more to the individual than to the societal unit. I might also add that the right thing is more likely to produce more long term benefits, the wrong thing to generate more short term benefits.

So, there is no ought for me. Just an objective observation of outcomes summarised thus:
"Right" thing: long term benefits for society and, often, for the individual
"Wrong" thing: short term benefits for the individual, but possible long term problems for the individual and society.

 

[zippy2006]

So, there is no ought for me. Just an objective observation of outcomes summarised thus:
"Right" thing: long term benefits for society and, often, for the individual
"Wrong" thing: short term benefits for the individual, but possible long term problems for the individual and society.

Are you not claiming that right ought to be done and wrong ought to be avoided? That long term benefits ought to be sought rather than short term benefits? That the common good ought to be privileged over the private good? After all, lots of people prefer the opposite.

 

[Ophiolite]

Are you not claiming that right ought to be done and wrong ought to be avoided?

No. I am identifying, in broad terms, who benefits from particular categories of action. I generally favour, on a personal level, going for the category of actions named "right". Sometimes, probably quite often, I opt for an action from the category named "wrong".

That long term benefits ought to be sought rather than short term benefits?

No. I think that, on balance, seeking long term benefits is likely to be more sensible, more beneficial, but that's just a personal view.

That the common good ought to be privileged over the private good?

Not ought to be, it's just the way evolution tends to push things. Yet it's not so hot on the long term.

After all, lots of people prefer the opposite.

Of course they do and look at how it leads to increased covid infections.

 

[zippy2006]

No. I am identifying, in broad terms, who benefits from particular categories of action. I generally favour, on a personal level, going for the category of actions named "right". Sometimes, probably quite often, I opt for an action from the category named "wrong".

Okay.

No. I think that, on balance, seeking long term benefits is likely to be more sensible, more beneficial, but that's just a personal view.

Why is it just a personal view? Aren't long term benefits intrinsically more desirable than short term benefits? Aren't benefits over a long term better than benefits over a short term by definition?

 

[Tree of Life]

@Ophiolite Thanks for chiming in.

Ought we to think that right actions tend to benefit society? What if I am rather convinced that wrong actions tend to benefit society? Is there a problem in my thinking?

 

[Ophiolite]

Why is it just a personal view?

For two reasons:

1. I do not have any right to impose my view on others.
2. I know plenty of people who do not hold this view.

Aren't long term benefits intrinsically more desirable than short term benefits?

Are they? The world at large disagrees with that position, else people would - for example - be donating money to development programs in Africa, not spending it on cosmetic surgery and pet food. Are you willing to take costly measures now that not even your grandchildren are going to benefit from? If you are, great, but the majority of humanity does not agree.

Aren't benefits over a long term better than benefits over a short term by definition?

No. It depends for whom.

 

[Ophiolite]

@Ophiolite Thanks for chiming in.

You are welcome.

Ought we to think that right actions tend to benefit society?

Ought we to think it? That depends on whether or not we are interested in ourselves, our social class, our family, our friends, our race, our country. I'll restate my personal preference, with a slight change of emphasis for clarity. Our actions should provide maximum benefit to the biosphere.

And what do we mean by long term and short term? I'm not being facetious, but I occassionally worry about what happens to the universe in trillions of years time and whether or not our actions now might have any impact on that. On a more practical level, as a geologist, 100,000 years is more or less a moment. Consequently when I see political decisions based upon the time to the next election and stockmarket buy/sell determined in microseconds by software I shake my head in disgust. Yet the politicians and the stockbrokers are making the decisions they think are right for them.

What if I am rather convinced that wrong actions tend to benefit society? Is there a problem in my thinking?

It seems more likely there is a problem with your definitions. You would need to give a concrete example for me to respond informatively.

 

[jayem]

1. Whenever we engage in moral activity we presuppose a moral norm. By moral activity I mean moral discourse, moral evaluation, and the like. When we say that "Brionna Taylor deserves justice", "Black Lives Matter!", "stealing is wrong", or similar statements we are engaging in these things. All of this presupposes a moral norm. Whenever we make a moral evaluation we suppose that there is some moral standard of judgment out there that tells us what's right and wrong and we are appealing to that.

When I say, for example, that "the fridge is broken - it ought not to be freezing the butter" I am appealing to a norm (a teleological norm). How do I know that it ought not be freezing the butter? I simply look at the manufacturer's guide to find out how the fridge ought to be working. The same happens in moral evaluation.

2. Relative norms depend upon absolute norms. Whenever we engage in moral activity we are actually presupposing not just any norm, but an absolute norm. Countries write laws and impose them on their citizens. Laws are a kind of relative norm because they are always subject to evaluation at a higher level. Just because something is a law, does not mean that it's good, just, or wise. We may always ask of any law: "Is this a good law? Is this a just law?" We can all think of example of unjust laws (Jim Crow laws, for example). But in order for us to evaluate any relative norm (like a law), there must be some absolute norm. An absolute norm is one that is not subject to evaluation at a higher level. We can ask: "Is this law good?" because there's something above the law whereby we may evaluate the law. Perhaps it's the constitution. Maybe when we ask: "Is this law good?" we are asking if it's constitutional. But then we may also ask: "Is our constitution good and just?" On and on this goes until we arrive at some absolute norm that cannot be evaluated at a higher level. If there is no such norm, we could never evaluate any relative norms at all. It would make no sense to ask: "Is this law good?"

3. Norms can only arise in personal contexts. Norms are only ever imposed by people. All relative norms that we know of are personal in nature. Behind every norm is a person or people who impose that norm. The fridge has a manufacturer that says how the fridge ought to work. The speed limit is imposed by a body of people. A nation's laws are imposed by people. Household rules are written and imposed by people. Every norm we can think of has a person or people standing behind it who have authority. It's very difficult to imagine an impersonal norm. What allegiance do we owe to the laws of physics, for example?

4. An absolute norm could only come from an absolute person. A norm that is not subject to evaluation at a higher level could only come from a person who is not subject to evaluation at a higher level - an absolute person. When we are talking about an absolute person, we are talking about something like God.

5. Therefore, whenever we engage in moral activity, we presuppose God's existence. If God does not exist there could be no absolute norms and thus no norms at all and all moral activity would be without meaning. Yet we find moral activity very meaningful. When we engage in it, we presuppose that God exists even if we resist this idea. We might simultaneously reject belief in God and accept belief in God while doing this.

I haven't read every post in this thread. So my point may have been already been made. Which is that your posting is essentially a prudential argument for a supreme being. You are saying that it's prudent and necessary to believe in a god who is the absolute moral arbiter, from whom all ethical norms are derived. But that's not an evidential argument. It doesn't demonstrate that such a god actually exists in any manner other than in the imagination of believers.

And even then, the argument is specious. History clearly shows that many acts of cruelty, causing much suffering and destruction, have been committed by people sincerely believing they are doing God's will. I'm sure you know the quote attributed to Blaise Pascal (an honest and perceptive Christian) that men never do evil as cheerfully or as completely as when they do it from religious conviction. And I'll also quote Bertrand Russell: If Christianity is supposed to make men moral, I haven't noticed it.

 

[cvanwey]

@Ophiolite What if I am rather convinced that wrong actions tend to benefit society? Is there a problem in my thinking?

You first need to identify/define 'wrong action' and 'benefit'. Can you identify a 'wrong action' and define 'benefit' please?