Judging morality

quatona said:

What were the criteria you applied when you concluded that god, the 10cc and the gospel were good criteria for judging a set of morals?

Click to expand...

The Holy Scriptures are much more reliable and older than most Pagan Philosophy. Homer, Hesiod, Plato, and Zoroaster were all very dubious and contradictory to each other.

Secondly the miracles of Jesus. His ressurection and miracles, accounted and written by his 12 apostles. On top of that there is a ton of extra biblical evidence of Christ and his ressurection(Josepheus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc). Then we have Paul, a man who hatred christians and was content on destroying them all, stoned St. Steven. All of a sudden makes a complete 360. Only a miracle coulda have changed Paul's mind when comparing his past history with his persecution of Christians.

Then we have the miracles of the saints. Which go by the thousands. Im not going to even get into those because they are so numerous. However I recommend reading about Padre Pio.

Lastly, the authority of the Church. Not many organizations last over 2000 years, and with all the problems the Church has gone through(persecution, corruption, schism, etc) it would only be by the Holy Spirit that it is still going and has not folded in on herself. The more christians were tortured and killed the more they spread and became numerous. No matter how much Pagan Roman emperors tried to erradicate christianity like Nero and Domitian it still could not be done. Constantine beating an army almost 4 times his size to liberate the christians from persecution from the barbaric infidels.

I hate to be naggy here, but I think a lot and I post what I think on here to have it, graded, so to speak, so if I could get some feedback for this, I would appreciate it. If what I have to say is so ridiculously stupid that it's not worth noticing, at least say so.


"Coming up with a universal moral standard is hard, but I had a debate as a final for my speech class last year, the topic being "Gays are not normal". I was the 2nd affirmative for the negative side of the debate (I crushed the other team btw), and I came up with an attack centering around the governments ability to take away rights. Normally the government takes away rights to ensure the stability and wellbeing of the nation. Slavery was one of these things, and since it was good for the nation's economy and racism, laws were made to uphold and protect it. However, it caused a portion of the nation to become unhappy, and through empathy and protest, it was changed, and the right to hold slaves was taken away. We see many other examples of this, and eventually the government's ability to take away the rights of others should go something like this:

The only right that exists with the power to take away the right of another sentient being exists under the control of the government, to be used only to take away the right to take the rights of others from those who are not the government.

Simplistically put, if I want to smoke weed, so long as I don't harm anyone else, I'm a-ok. If I hate gays and try to take away their right to marriage, I'm wrong because I'm trying to take away the rights of another person when I'm not the government, and the right I'm trying to take does not impede on the rights of others.

Now, after trudging through my thought process, I would have to say that the universal moral standard (or something really close to it) would have to be derived from that."

PetersKeys said:

The Holy Scriptures are much more reliable and older than most Pagan Philosophy.

Click to expand...

Well, it's obvious from previous postings that there are any number of religions and philosophical schools that predate Christianity.

Homer, Hesiod, Plato, and Zoroaster were all very dubious and contradictory to each other.

Click to expand...

Maybe because they're unrelated?

Secondly the miracles of Jesus. His ressurection and miracles, accounted and written by his 12 apostles. On top of that there is a ton of extra biblical evidence of Christ and his ressurection(Josepheus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc).

Click to expand...

Oh dear. Have you ever read the actual sources? There's a few paragraphs total by non-Christian writers, one or two of which refer to how Jesus' followers believed in his resurrection. None of them attest to it directly.

Then we have Paul, a man who hatred christians and was content on destroying them all, stoned St. Steven. All of a sudden makes a complete 360. Only a miracle coulda have changed Paul's mind when comparing his past history with his persecution of Christians.

Then we have the miracles of the saints. Which go by the thousands. Im not going to even get into those because they are so numerous. However I recommend reading about Padre Pio.

Lastly, the authority of the Church. Not many organizations last over 2000 years, and with all the problems the Church has gone through(persecution, corruption, schism, etc) it would only be by the Holy Spirit that it is still going and has not folded in on herself.

Click to expand...

So...the Holy Spirit is in the business of propping up corrupt and violent sociopolitical structures?

Constantine beating an army almost 4 times his size to liberate the christians from persecution from the barbaric infidels.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, God couldn't beat an enemy army that had iron chariots. That would seem to be a significant blow against the whole omnipotent thing. At the very least, it suggests a useful strategy if I ever happen to be playing against God in Civ IV.

Tackleberry said:

And where does "love my neighbor as myself" come from?

Click to expand...

It's universal in most religions.

Edit: I see that others posted even more detailed and better responses. Thank you.

Atheists understand this.
Even children understand this. If I sit somewhere first, "I was there first" is the rule. It is understood."
If you have more than enough, you should share. You don't have to, but then when someone else has more than enough, they will remember your selfishness, and probably offer you none. If you are kind to other kids, they will like you. If you aren't, they won't want to be around you. If you lie, people will think you are a liar, and doubt everything you say. If you cheat in games, no one will want to play games with you. You reap what you sow. What comes around goes around. It's the same message said many different ways, and something that is inherent in the human heart, I believe.

And where does this come from for me? Mostly from my heart.

I once said that to my bro-in-law, and he told me that when he looks in his heart, all he sees is darkness and sin. I thought that was rather strange, since he claimed that Jesus lived there, and was a light unto him and to man. He also said that his heart had its own desires.

You have your own desires, but your heart, or conscience, or whatever you want to call it, is more like a compass.
You head might want to be selfish, but not your heart/conscience.

I always find it curious when someone seems to almost idolize or worship the bible itself as God. They must look to it as a guide. But focusing on the law, rather than on loving your neighbor, is what made the people of Jesus' day stumble. "How many times do I forgive my brother? 7?"

The person looked at it as a law. What is the number that I need, so that I can stop.
But it is the wrong question. It's like asking how often you have to be honest.

So, people run to the bible, looking for the number of times to forgive someone, and missing the point.
They go to the story of the woman about to be stoned, ignore that Jesus shunned those who were to stone her by convicting them of their own sin, did not condemn the woman, and told her to go and sin no more, having forgiven her.
And what do they take from the story?
That one who sins should be careful about condemning others' sin?
That one should show mercy, as Christ showed mercy?
That Christ did not condemn her, when he was the one that could throw the first stone?
No. They take away, "He said to go and sin no more!!!!", condemning the person that they are talking to, and missing the guts of what the story even illustrates.

Beanieboy said:

It's universal in most religions.

Click to expand...

Where do the morals in religions come from, ultimately?

Tackleberry said:

Where do the morals in religions come from, ultimately?

Click to expand...

Kyrisch said:

From basic observations regarding what makes for the most benefit of the community (i.e. what makes everyone 'happy').

Click to expand...

I said this on the last page... How is this not a valid explanation?

Tackleberry said:

Where do the morals in religions come from, ultimately?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure of your question.

From the creators of the religion.
The heart of men, literally.
I speculate collective consciousness.
One could speculate that they come from Allah, God, Buddha (that it simply has always existed), Shiva, etc.

What you seem to be fishing for is: Didn't God create the morals of those religions?
Did God create the morals of Hindu that they are to be servants unto others, and treat them like they were gods or honored guests?
It's kind of like asking if Shiva created the 10 Commandments, and yet, most religions forbid killing, stealing, lying, adultery, etc.

Tackleberry said:

Where do the morals in religions come from, ultimately?

Click to expand...

probably the people who made them up

quatona said:

The problem is not that I find it stupid exactly (I don´t even necessarily disagree), I find it confusing in that may be great answer to some questions - but I fail to see how it answers the question in the OP. I didn´t mean to ask for a description of your moral standards, but for the criteria by which we are to judge them good.
It seems to me that the only criterion you implicitly (or in your unmentioned premise) gave was 'The criterion to judge a set of morals good is their universality'. I´m not sure, though, that this really was the answer you meant to give.

What I had in mind when asking:
I am interested in whether someone can come up with criteria that
a. aren´t ulltimately utilitarian
b. escape subjectivity.

Click to expand...

Thank you for replying. First off though, I must ask what you meant in your question. Were you asking how we determine good and evil, or were you asking what makes a set of morals acceptable? I answered the latter, saying that a set of morals is acceptable if it does not impede on the rights of others. If your question was the former, then the answer you're looking for does not exist, since we determine good and evil by pitting our own morals against the others.

Kyrisch said:

I said this on the last page... How is this not a valid explanation?

Click to expand...

I find that the most succinct, actually.

It is through observation of cause and effect that people come up with morals and rules and laws.
If the action hurts no one, people question its immorality (gay marriage.)
If the action hurts someone, people question its morality (slavery.)

Since you obviously see it coming, I'll just cut to the chase. Here is the moral argument for the existance of God. Source

<H1>The Moral Argument

The moral argument appeals to the existence of moral laws as evidence of God&#8217;s existence. According to this argument, there couldn&#8217;t be such a thing as morality without God; to use the words that Sartre attributed to Dostoyevsky, &#8220;If there is no God, then everything is permissible.&#8221; That there are moral laws, then, that not everything is impermissible, proves that God exists.
Most facts are facts about the way that the world is. It is a fact that cats eat mice because there are lots of animals out there, cats, and lots of them eat mice. It is a fact that Paris is the capital of France because there exists a city called Paris that is the capital of France. For most facts, there are objects in the world that make them true.
Morality Consists of a Set of Commands

Moral facts aren&#8217;t like that. The fact that we ought to do something about the problem of famine isn&#8217;t a fact about the way that the world is, it&#8217;s a fact about the way that the world ought to be. There is nothing out there in the physical world that makes moral facts true. This is because moral facts aren&#8217;t descriptive, they&#8217;re prescriptive; moral facts have the form of commands.
Commands Imply a Commander

There are some things that can&#8217;t exist unless something else exists along with them. There can&#8217;t be something that is being carried unless there is something else that is carrying it. There can&#8217;t be something that is popular unless there are lots of people that like it. Commands are like this; commands can&#8217;t exist without something else existing that commanded them.
The moral argument seeks to exploit this fact; If moral facts are a kind a command, the moral argument asks, then who commanded morality? To answer this question, the moral argument suggests that we look at the importance of morality.
Morality is Ultimately Authoritative

Morality is of over-riding importance. If someone morally ought to do something, then this over-rules any other consideration that might come into play. It might be in my best interests not to give any money to charity, but morally I ought to, so all things considered I ought to. It might be in my best interests to pretend that I&#8217;m too busy to see my in-laws on Wednesday so that I can watch the game, but morally I ought not, so all things considered I ought not.
If someone has one reason to do one thing, but morally ought to do another thing, then all things considered they ought to do the other thing. Morality over-rules everything. Morality has ultimate authority.
Ultimately Authoritative Commands Imply an Ultimately Authoritative Commander

Commands, though, are only as authoritative as the person that commands them. If I were to command everyone to pay extra tax so that we could spend more money on the police force, then no one would have to do so. I just don&#8217;t have the authority to issue that command. If the government were to command everyone to pay extra tax so that we could spend more money on the police force, though, then that would be different, because it does have that authority.

As morality has more authority than any human person or institution, the moral argument suggests, morality can&#8217;t have been commanded by any human person or institution. As morality has ultimate authority, as morality over-rules everything, morality must have been commanded by someone who has authority over everything. The existence of morality thus points us to a being that is greater than any of us and that rules over all creation.
What the Moral Argument Proves

If the moral argument can be defended against the various objections that have been raised against it, then it proves the existence of an author of morality, of a being that has authority over and that actively rules over all creation. Together with the ontological argument, the first cause argument, and the argument from design, this would give us proof that there is a perfect, necessary, and eternal being that created the universe with life in mind and has the authority to tell us how we are to run it. The correct response to this would be to seek God&#8217;s will and to practice it.
</H1>

Click to expand...

Relative morality irreparably undermines the argument for God from morality.

Tackleberry said:

How?

Click to expand...

Social relative morality comes from a society. The society yells at you if you're immoral. Problem solved, and we didn't even need an invisible superbeing.

RecoveringPhilosopher said:

Social relative morality comes from a society. The society yells at you if you're immoral. Problem solved, and we didn't even need an invisible superbeing.

Click to expand...

But social relative morality has no absolute.

Tackleberry said:

But social relative morality has no absolute.

Click to expand...

Yes. This is why it is called relative. Good job. Now you get it.

RecoveringPhilosopher said:

Yes. This is why it is called relative. Good job. Now you get it.

Click to expand...

So how is having nothing absolute more beneficial than having something absolute that you can trust and count on?