Moral absolutism as compared to the advancement of technology

[ReuleauxMan]

There is an itching question I need to ponder. I want to quote an argument from a cited source...
"
(1) Moral law implies a Moral Lawgiver.
(2) There is an objective moral law.
(3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Lawgiver.
"

Geisler, N. L. (2002). Systematic theology, volume one: introduction, Bible (p. 36). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

Throughout human history, there have been advances in civilization, quality of life, technology, and probably morality. Most of these at least, especially technology, have come about by intellectual efforts. If technology can be advanced via intellectual creativity and effort, why does human morality rely on God to advance? Why can't humans via their own creativity have advanced morality like technology?

I am a Christian and believe in an absolute moral standard by God, but perhaps too the same is with technology, yet clearly technology has come from the workings of the human mind and not Holy writ.

 

[Occams Barber]

There is an itching question I need to ponder. I want to quote an argument from a cited source...
"
(1) Moral law implies a Moral Lawgiver.
(2) There is an objective moral law.
(3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Lawgiver.
"

Geisler, N. L. (2002). Systematic theology, volume one: introduction, Bible (p. 36). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

Throughout human history, there have been advances in civilization, quality of life, technology, and probably morality. Most of these at least, especially technology, have come about by intellectual efforts. If technology can be advanced via intellectual creativity and effort, why does human morality rely on God to advance? Why can't humans via their own creativity have advanced morality like technology?

I am a Christian and believe in an absolute moral standard by God, but perhaps too the same is with technology, yet clearly technology has come from the workings of the human mind and not Holy writ.

Points 1 and 2 are not self evidently true.

OB

 

[Hans Blaster]

There is an itching question I need to ponder. I want to quote an argument from a cited source...
"
(1) Moral law implies a Moral Lawgiver.
(2) There is an objective moral law.
(3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Lawgiver.
"

Geisler, N. L. (2002). Systematic theology, volume one: introduction, Bible (p. 36). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

Throughout human history, there have been advances in civilization, quality of life, technology, and probably morality. Most of these at least, especially technology, have come about by intellectual efforts. If technology can be advanced via intellectual creativity and effort, why does human morality rely on God to advance? Why can't humans via their own creativity have advanced morality like technology?

I am a Christian and believe in an absolute moral standard by God, but perhaps too the same is with technology, yet clearly technology has come from the workings of the human mind and not Holy writ.

If the argument is to show that there is an absolute moral standard given by a god, then why does the argument refer to an "objective moral law"?

 

[ReuleauxMan]

Points 1 and 2 are not self evidently true.

OB

Thanks for the speedy reply ! I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to philosophy and logic, so I'll need to quote a bit further into the text.

"
The first premise is self-evident. A moral law is a prescription, and prescriptions come only from prescribers. Unlike the laws of nature (which are only descriptive), moral laws are prescriptive: Moral laws don’t describe what is; they prescribe what ought to be. They are not simply a description of the way people do behave but are imperatives as to how they should behave.
"
Geisler, N. L. (2002). Systematic theology, volume one: introduction, Bible (p. 36). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

I believe this appeals to the idea of life having a sort of justice and justification to it beyond just being a pointless blip in time - no reward or punishment or continuity to it, just... nothing - where, say, an evil tyrant of history goes through life unchallenged and unpunished, or a saint of history goes through life persecuted and unrewarded. There ought to be justice for these people (and everyone), which would require life after death (and thus a God who judges).

As a theist I am partial to having meaning to life from there being a God who can provide justification (consequences, rewards, and punishments) for all that I have experienced and done, otherwise there would be no point to a life and universe that otherwise seems steeped in meaning - which is an important point to me as a subjective, conscious experiencer of life and being that clings to existence and being alive for as long as possible (eternally even).

So, given this, the argument in the OP seems to be true even if not self-evidently so.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Unless, P1 is misquoted (3) doesn't follow. The only conclusion is "a moral lawgiver" NOT "objective moral lawgiver."

ETA: Unless it means "objective-moral-law giver"

 

[ReuleauxMan]

If the argument is to show that there is an absolute moral standard given by a god, then why does the argument refer to an "objective moral law"?

I'm not sure if I understand. God is said to be an absolute, incapable of lying or imperfection, so by every standard the moral law prescribed by God would be perfect, i.e. objective.

 

[Clare73]

There is an itching question I need to ponder. I want to quote an argument from a cited source...
"
(1) Moral law implies a Moral Lawgiver.
(2) There is an objective moral law.
(3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Lawgiver.
"

Geisler, N. L. (2002). Systematic theology, volume one: introduction, Bible (p. 36). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

Throughout human history, there have been advances in civilization, quality of life, technology, and probably morality. Most of these at least, especially technology, have come about by intellectual efforts. If technology can be advanced via intellectual creativity and effort, why does human morality rely on God to advance? Why can't humans via their own creativity have advanced morality like technology?

I am a Christian and believe in an absolute moral standard by God, but perhaps too the same is with technology, yet clearly technology has come from the workings of the human mind and not Holy writ.

Because morality is based on the nature of God, which doesn't change and can't be improved.

 

[Tinker Grey]

1) Moral law implies a Moral Lawgiver.

Not any more than the law of gravity implies a gravity-law giver. Some laws are, in fact, descriptive which contradicts your follow-on Geisler quote.

I would, indeed, go further and declare that moral laws are, in fact, descriptive, that is, not prescriptive at all. If we study, say, chimps and decide that this tribe seems to have a moral law. WE are describing their behavior. We are NOT dictating it.

I don't think this goes away just because we describe our own behavior. In some sense, of course, we do prescribe to ourselves laws in an attempt to govern society. And as such, it is very subjective.

(2) There is an objective moral law.

No there isn't. As such, the conclusion has not been demonstrated.

 

[ReuleauxMan]

Because morality is based on the nature of God, which doesn't change and can't be improved..

Thanks, that clears up the question for me . What is moral or immoral, unlike technology, does not change.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What is moral or immoral, unlike technology, does not change.

On the contrary, it changes all the time. Ask any interracial couple.

 

[Occams Barber]

(1) Moral law implies a Moral Lawgiver.

Laws of right and wrong can come about through a variety of circumstances including evolution, unconscious group behaviour, the environment, past culture, new knowledge, misunderstanding of natural events etc.. There is no reason to assume a Moral Lawgiver unless you assume the existence of a deity whose function is to provide moral law.

(2) There is an objective moral law.

Laws of right and wrong have varied enormously across time, culture and geography. I have yet to find a behavioural law which is consistent across all cultures. Given the range of 'rights and wrongs' morality is obviously subjective.

(3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Lawgiver.

The first premise is self-evident. A moral law is a prescription, and prescriptions come only from prescribers. Unlike the laws of nature (which are only descriptive), moral laws are prescriptive: Moral laws don’t describe what is; they prescribe what ought to be. They are not simply a description of the way people do behave but are imperatives as to how they should behave.

As mentioned above you are assuming that moral law requires a Lawgiver when there is no reason to make this assumption. Your entire argument rests on two unprovable assumptions:
1. God exists
2. Said God is the arbiter of moral law

OB

 

[Tinker Grey]

As mentioned above you are assuming that moral law requires a Lawgiver when there is no reason to make this assumption. Your entire argument rests on two unprovable assumptions:
1. God exists
2. Said God is the arbiter of moral law

And since these assumptions are what the syllogism is intended to prove (well, at least #1), we have the fallacy of begging the question.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not sure if I understand. God is said to be an absolute, incapable of lying or imperfection, so by every standard the moral law prescribed by God would be perfect, i.e. objective.

Objective refers to lacking personal bias, as opposed to subjective. The existence of some sort of objective morality is not the same as an absolute, or imposed morality.

If the arguer (in the cited work) wanted to argue in favor of an absolute moral law giver, then they really should have started with the claim:

1. There is absolute moral law
2. an absolute moral law implies a law giver
3. Therefore there is an moral law giver.

Then we would ask for proof there there exists absolute or moral law.

 

[ReuleauxMan]

Not any more than the law of gravity implies a gravity-law giver. Some laws are, in fact, descriptive which contradicts your follow-on Geisler quote.

I would, indeed, go further and declare that moral laws are, in fact, descriptive, that is, not prescriptive at all. If we study, say, chimps and decide that this tribe seems to have a moral law. WE are describing their behavior. We are NOT dictating it.

I don't think this goes away just because we describe our own behavior. In some sense, of course, we do prescribe to ourselves laws in an attempt to govern society. And as such, it is very subjective.

Agreed that virtually any moral law, God-prescribed or human-prescribed, describes what behavior is to be or not to be done. No additional examples of that behavior being followed or not need be given for a moral law to be descriptive. They are also prescriptive in that they command people to obey said law. But this does go in line with the OP I believe. Chimps have a social structure of sorts where unwritten laws of socializing and conduct they follow. Humans need a book or law code to know morality for the most part, because otherwise our base instincts would rule (which, humans, unlike many animals, lack most of their base instincts for survival at birth and are mostly helpless except for crying or throwing temper tantrums when needing something).

 

[Tinker Grey]

Agreed that virtually any moral law, God-prescribed or human-prescribed, describes what behavior is to be or not to be done. No additional examples of that behavior being followed or not need be given for a moral law to be descriptive. They are also prescriptive in that they command people to obey said law. But this does go in line with the OP I believe. Chimps have a social structure of sorts where unwritten laws of socializing and conduct they follow. Humans need a book or law code to know morality for the most part, because otherwise our base instincts would rule (which, humans, unlike many animals, lack most of their base instincts for survival at birth and are mostly helpless except for crying or throwing temper tantrums when needing something).

When we encode our preferences we are prescribing what we believe ought to be done (subjective). If we study a tribe of chimps we discover a morality. If aliens study humans, they can discover a code of morality, written or not. (And surely, you wouldn't say pre-literate societies lacked morality.)

Too, I would argue that we DO follow our base instincts. We just happen to encode those base instincts into law also.

 

[ReuleauxMan]

Laws of right and wrong can come about through a variety of circumstances including evolution, unconscious group behaviour, the environment, past culture, new knowledge, misunderstanding of natural events etc.. There is no reason to assume a Moral Lawgiver unless you assume the existence of a deity whose function is to provide moral law.



Laws of right and wrong have varied enormously across time, culture and geography. I have yet to find a behavioural law which is consistent across all cultures. Given the range of 'rights and wrongs' morality is obviously subjective.





As mentioned above you are assuming that moral law requires a Lawgiver when there is no reason to make this assumption. Your entire argument rests on two unprovable assumptions:
1. God exists
2. Said God is the arbiter of moral law

OB

Yes, this is right in line with the OP. That the same faculties by which humans created inventions and technology are capable of creating moral prescriptions, basically, for betterment of society and quality of life. I.e., it was possible for the human race to come out of savagery and barbarism via intellectual efforts back then, and continue improving upon them as civilization developed. Although, it would seem that there is a point where morality can't get any better or more advanced beyond a certain point of purity or perfection, while there may be no limit to the advancement of technology, quality of life, and civilization.

 

[Occams Barber]

Yes, this is right in line with the OP. That the same faculties by which humans created inventions and technology are capable of creating moral prescriptions, basically, for betterment of society and quality of life. I.e., it was possible for the human race to come out of savagery and barbarism via intellectual efforts back then, and continue improving upon them as civilization developed.

Maybe you need to rephrase the OP. It appears to be supporting two contradictory ideas i.e. there is/is not a Moral Lawgiver.

Although, it would seem that there is a point where morality can't get any better or more advanced beyond a certain point of purity or perfection, while there may be no limit to the advancement of technology, quality of life, and civilization.

As knowledge expands the likelihood that behavioural rules are based on objective measures increases. Unfortunately, humans are susceptible to manipulation based on emotional arguments, ignorance and gross gullibility. Add in the fact that morality is relative and you have no reason to assume a path to some form of perfect morality. The obvious reason is disagreement on what is morally good.

OB

 

[ReuleauxMan]

Maybe you need to rephrase the OP. It appears to be supporting two contradictory ideas i.e. there is/is not a Moral Lawgiver.

Possibly , I'm trying to entertain the idea that humans have done so much to advance technology, and so that leaves the door wide open for "why not morality too instead of God being the one necessary for that" .

As knowledge expands the likelihood that behavioural rules are based on objective measures increases. Unfortunately, humans are susceptible to manipulation based on emotional arguments, ignorance and gross gullibility. Add in the fact that morality is relative and you have no reason to assume a path to some form of perfect morality. The obvious reason is disagreement on what is morally good.

OB

Yes, but more or less there is only so much kindness and "do no harm" (I take are good example guideposts in general for morality in the spirit of a perhaps ultimate - world peace) one can do and teach in a lifetime, but technological advancement seems to be increasing exponentially with time. (I newly observed this while participating in this topic .)

I wanted to sneak in there that if morality, unlike technological advancement, can be perfect or objective for humans, then there would have to be an objective standard that comes from the same place as human souls, by which they are judged. Perhaps humans could have and did pull off moral advancement on their own, or perhaps God was necessary to get humans out of the quagmire of ancient savagery and barbarism. I've read that Christianity did much to advance morality in the times it was written and afterwards, and with that societal stability, art, medicine, technology, civilization, etc. But I concede that doesn't necessarily prove whether the scriptures were divinely inspired or the product of human creativity like technology is.

 

[Hans Blaster]

When we encode our preferences we are prescribing what we believe ought to be done (subjective). If we study a tribe of chimps we discover a morality. If aliens study humans, they can discover a code of morality, written or not. (And surely, you wouldn't say pre-literate societies lacked morality.)

Too, I would argue that we DO follow our base instincts. We just happen to encode those base instincts into law also.

And those alien observers would have an objective view (or could, as they might find some human morality abhorrent, challenging their objectivity) of what human morality was, both "universally" and for various societies and cultures.

There may be at the core, a moral root of humanity certain basic moral universals, but these can be explained by our lifestyle. For example, we would all agree that wanton, random, unregulated killing doesn't work, even if our societies permit killings with in our own communities for certain reason (commission of certain crimes, etc.). Stable society wouldn't work without them, and we are only successful because we work in societies. That is our legacy.

But none of this requires that a moral code (even one we feel instinctually) be given by a being. (Or as some would say, "written on our hearts", but that's a poor place to leave a message. I've never even seen my heart.)

 

[Occams Barber]

Because morality is based on the nature of God, which doesn't change and can't be improved.

You may believe that the nature of God is unchangeable but the the rules of right and wrong (aka 'morality') have changed dramatically over time, cultures and environments.

To suggest that morality is unchanging is to fly in the face of history.

OB