Morality is objective, except when it isn't

[Moral Orel]

Ok, I'll ask this another way: Is torturing babies morally wrong, or is it just something that most people naturally don't want to do?

Sorry to interject, but I've been following along, and D-Wood asked a question I was hoping to hear your answer to:

So let me ask you, why is it morally wrong?

 

[Reasonable Christian]

Unfortunately, D-Wood hasn't answered my questions/objections, even though I've restated them several times. For those who are interested, I suggest going back through the thread and carefully reading what I asked and D-Wood's contradictory responses and non-sequiturs.

As for why I believe X to be morally wrong, I've already stated that I ground moral precepts in God's character as revealed in the Bible. I obviously don't expect atheists to agree with this standard of morality any more than I agree with a materialism-based standard. My goal was not to come to an agreement on a moral standard, but to point out that on materialism, there are no universal moral obligations (as distinct from moral precepts that may be widely accepted because of evolution or whatever). In other words, as Dawkins himself said, on materialism the universe "has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” In any event, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Moral Orel]

Unfortunately, D-Wood hasn't answered my questions/objections, even though I've restated them several times. For those who are interested, I suggest going back through the thread and carefully reading what I asked and D-Wood's contradictory responses and non-sequiturs.

Ya know what? D-Wood and I have had a discussion about this before and I don't agree with him either.

As for why I believe X to be morally wrong, I've already stated that I ground moral precepts in God's character as revealed in the Bible.

Hey, I'm just curious. I'm not going to try to talk you out of anything, promise. But can you tell me what you mean when you say that you "ground moral precepts in God's character"? Does that mean X is wrong because God doesn't like X?

 

[coffee4u]

its not about "happens to" as if its some arbitrary thing that can be successfully redefined based on ... whatever.

There are deep natural facts about what makes humans happy and what help societies function. Those two are actually deeply intertwined. So enduring conceptions of whats "good" are actually rather objectively grounded. I would add that there are also fleeting experimental conceptions of the good that sometimes end up in social destruction.

No they are not, nor is it deeply ingrained. What makes humans happy and the laws of society are very changeable, by time and culture.
In some societies right to this day it makes a mother happy to take her daughter to be circumsied. She feels she is doing a good thing for her.
Now what does our western moral compess say to that?
I would say 99.9% of us would agree that it is a barbaric practice that needs to stop. No matter if we are Christian or not.

Now if humans all had an identicle never changing moral compass of what good means then our moral compass would agree across culture and time. Not at all objective but subjective to who is making the laws.

 

[durangodawood]

Unfortunately, D-Wood hasn't answered my questions/objections, even though I've restated them several times. .....

I thought I did. Just look at my last reply to you. Right on point, and despite it's brevity, I really gave it consideration. If I posed a contradiction, you should have just called me on it right there rather than complaining to everyone else about me.

 

[durangodawood]

No they are not, nor is it deeply ingrained. What makes humans happy and the laws of society are very changeable, by time and culture.
In some societies right to this day it makes a mother happy to take her daughter to be circumsied. She feels she is doing a good thing for her.
Now what does our western moral compess say to that?
I would say 99.9% of us would agree that it is a barbaric practice that needs to stop. No matter if we are Christian or not.

Now if humans all had an identicle never changing moral compass of what good means then our moral compass would agree across culture and time. Not at all objective but subjective to who is making the laws.

Why would a naturalist moral derivation result in exactly the same rules everywhere at all times? That's more like what I would expect from a universal divine origin of morals.

 

[durangodawood]

... on materialism, there are no universal moral obligations (as distinct from moral precepts that may be widely accepted because of evolution or whatever). ....

I agree that this is a problem...which explains why we had to invent a scenario of moral obligation.

 

[coffee4u]

Does that mean X is wrong because God doesn't like X?

yes

 

[coffee4u]

Why would a naturalist moral derivation result in exactly the same rules everywhere at all times? That's more like what I would expect from a universal divine origin of morals.

I was relpying to what you said.

You said:
There are deep natural facts about what makes humans happy and what help societies function.

And I am saying, no there are not because what makes one person, one culture happy is not what makes another happy.
I gave female circumision as an example. Where what makes one culture and person happy does not in another.

Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean.

 

[Moral Orel]

I was relpying to what you said.

You said:
There are deep natural facts about what makes humans happy and what help societies function.

And I am saying, no there are not because what makes one person, one culture happy is not what makes another happy.
I gave female circumision as an example. Where what makes one culture and person happy does not in another.

Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean.

He didn't say that all cultures agree on everything.

 

[Moral Orel]

yes

That's it?

 

[coffee4u]

He didn't say that all cultures agree on everything.

That is what he says.
There are deep natural facts about what makes humans happy and what help societies function.

If this doesn't mean that all people everywhere agree on what makes them happy, what does it mean?

 

[coffee4u]

That's it?

It's God's creation, he decides what is good, bad, moral and immoral.
Mankind's laws will change, what was illegal at one time will be legal in another.
God doesn't change because people change.

 

[durangodawood]

I was relpying to what you said.

You said:
There are deep natural facts about what makes humans happy and what help societies function.

And I am saying, no there are not because what makes one person, one culture happy is not what makes another happy.
I gave female circumision as an example. Where what makes one culture and person happy does not in another.

Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean.

Ok I see what you're getting at. My sense is that the deep similarities among people are really pretty deep. And so we see core morals ubiquitously, like don't murder a member of the tribe, or don't steal from a member of the tribe. But there's all kinds of weird contingent morality at a shallower level. Like fgm for example (or mgm if you follow the older Bible.). Some is based on "accident" of geography, food ways, the disposition of other neighboring cultures, etc. Some I think is pretty arbitrary and serves nothing more than to signal group membership. We see people wanting to throw off some of these ways when an alternative moral scheme looks attractive and plausible.

That's how it seems to me. The enduring morals have proven to make life work well. The transient ones arise and fall for other reasons. And it seems to me that there's a long term steady moral vector toward recognizing the full humanity of other "tribes". Ups and downs with that one, but net steady upward I think. It's a bit of a messy process, the evolution of naturalistic morality. I think that's one reason why people prefer the idea of a universal divine origin morality.

 

[JohnClay]

Mankind's laws will change, what was illegal at one time will be legal in another.
God doesn't change because people change.

What about how God had commanded circumcision, outlawed certain foods, commanded the death penalty for working on the Sabbath, death for homosexual sex, permitted or commanded slavery (Deuteronomy 20:11), permitted polygamy (many main Jewish men in the Old Testament had multiple wives)...
It seems that God has changed....

 

[Moral Orel]

It's God's creation, he decides what is good, bad, moral and immoral.

Why? Walk me through it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why? Walk me through it.

A walk through??? What do you think this is, Orel? .... A Ken Ham exhibit?

 

[durangodawood]

A walk through??? What do you think this is, Orel? .... A Ken Ham exhibit?

Yeah its hard to summarize. No one likes it when you leave out the complexity for the sake of brevity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah its hard to summarize. No one likes it when you leave out the complexity for the sake of brevity.

They sure don't! I've always thought it odd that some people harp, harp, harp upon, and apparently take very seriously, some even at an excruciating level, all of the 'bad' parts of the Old Testament all the while somehow remaining completely aloof of and ignoring all of the 'miraculous' parts in which all of the 'bad' stuff supposedly happened.

Now, why is that? It seems to me that if people are really honestly concerned about the social implications of the Bible, and at the same time they don't really believe a word of it, they'd be up front and transparent about admitting that the main reason they even show up to say anything in critique of the Old Testament in the first place ................... is because they're bothered not actually by the Bible itself, but by the fact that some people have believed it and misused.

Hence, implying here that it never really was a concern of skeptics about whether the Bibe is in fact true or not, but really only their political concern about what some claimed Christians might do with the 'bad' parts of the bible in the here and now.

Does this sound maybe like I'm on to something here? I think I am. It's all political and I hate politics.

 

[durangodawood]

They sure don't! I've always thought it odd that some people harp, harp, harp upon, and apparently take very seriously, some even at an excruciating level, all of the 'bad' parts of the Old Testament all the while somehow remaining completely aloof of and ignoring all of the 'miraculous' parts in which all of the 'bad' stuff supposedly happened.

Now, why is that? It seems to me that if people are really honestly concerned about the social implications of the Bible, and at the same time they don't really believe a word of it, they'd be up front and transparent about admitting that the main reason they even show up to say anything in critique of the Old Testament in the first place ................... is because they're bothered not actually by the Bible itself, but by the fact that some people have believed it and misused.

Hence, implying here that it never really was a concern of skeptics about whether the Bibe is in fact true or not, but really only their political concern about what some claimed Christians might do with the 'bad' parts of the bible in the here and now.

Does this sound maybe like I'm on to something here? I think I am. It's all political and I hate politics.

I dunno. Maybe if politics wasnt so hot, the theism/atheism debate would cool down too. But right now the image that sums it up for a lot of atheists is Trump standing with bible in hand flashing his clown tough guy look as tear gas wafts away in the distance.

Otoh, it is a perennial question: how do you guys tease a coherent morality out of the apparent contradictory morass that is this library of books assembled into the Bible?.... especially when overlaid with various theological claims about the nature of God.