Morality without Absolute Morality

[Fervent]

When I act in according to my moral feelings, it fills me with satisfaction. That seems good to me. Would another adjective be a better descriptor?

All you seem to be saying is your feelings agree with your feelings. So yeah, moral doesn't seem like an apt description.

Edited to add! They have also kept me out of legal and social trouble without fail.

Neither of which amounts to 'moral'

 

[Stopped_lurking]

All you seem to be saying is your feelings agree with your feelings. So yeah, moral doesn't seem like an apt description.

Neither of which amounts to 'moral'

It seems as moral as Nicomachean ethics to me. What is your point?

 

[Fervent]

It seems as moral as Nicomachean ethics to me. What is your point?

Just pointing out an inconsistency in your denial of real morality, since by claiming that your feelings have been good moral guides you indicate that there is a real benchmark for what constitutes moral. if they are simply arbitrary feelings, then there is no "good" to be had.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Just pointing out an inconsistency in your denial of real morality, since by claiming that your feelings have been good moral guides you indicate that there is a real benchmark for what constitutes moral. if they are simply arbitrary feelings, then there is no "good" to be had.

Being good moral guides just means that they let me determine what I feel is moral (it feels good) or not (it feels bad). They have also been useful, as indicated by my addition.

You're using 'good' as a synonym with moral when trying to point out the inconsistency, I meant it in the useful sense.

 

[fhansen]

People worldwide share a sense of morality. Morality can be based on the simple formula, "If you want X, then you must do Y". For instance, if you want peaceful coexistence, then you must not allow unjustified killing. If you want property rights, then you must not allow unjustified taking of things from others. If you want justice, then you must not allow false witness. And if you want a happy life, then you will want peaceful coexistence, property rights, and justice. Based on such reasoning, people around the world have developed moralities that make this world a better place.

However, many people argue that we need an absolute morality, as though it somehow offers something better than what we can achieve through reason. See, for instance, Charlie Kirk's argument for this point:

&t=230s

But what would an absolute morality offer that fundamental reason alone cannot already determine?

An absolute or objective moraltiy means that it's anchored in more than human opinion, which is subject to change, but in something much bigger and external to ourselves, anchored in God the Creator. By knowing that goodness and justice and order and love lie at the very foundations of this universe, determined by a good God whose image we're actually made in, we can know that human life, too, is definitively ordered to that end.

 

[Fervent]

Being good moral guides just means that they let me determine what I feel is moral (it feels good) or not (it feels bad). They have also been useful, as indicated by my addition.

So you're saying nothing at all when you say they are 'good moral guides" since all you're saying is that your feelings are your feelings.

You're using 'good' as a synonym with moral when trying to point out the inconsistency, I meant it in the useful sense.

I'm using "good" in an ordinary sense, it's the "guides" portion I am saying is meaningless without a benchmark to be working toward.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

So you're saying nothing at all when you say they are 'good moral guides" since all you're saying is that your feelings are your feelings.

Sure, ok.

I'm using "good" in an ordinary sense, it's the "guides" portion I am saying is meaningless without a benchmark to be working toward.

They influence my behaviour, and that have kept me out of trouble and helped me live a life of satisfaction. Isn't that a guide of some sort?

 

[Fervent]

Sure, ok.

They influence my behaviour, and that have kept me out of trouble and helped me live a life of satisfaction. Isn't that a guide of some sort?

Perhaps a social guide, but unless you believe that popularity makes a proposition moral then that fails to amount to a moral guide. it simply means you are sensitive to social consensus.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Divine sources speak from authority, because humans are blind men leading blind men.

No one disagrees that "divine sources" claim authority. What is not established is why anyone should accept that authority. Why should we trusts the priests that present us such laws in the names of those divinities?

The claimed authority is only as good as the proof of the claim.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Perhaps a social guide, but unless you believe that popularity makes a proposition moral then that fails to amount to a moral guide. it simply means you are sensitive to social consensus.

But I act in accordance with my feelings on moral issues because it makes me feel good and in the process it has also kept me in good legal and social standing. Has it not then been a useful guide on moral issues.

What criteria are you using to say if something is or is not a moral guide? For me it is simply if it allows me to determine my position on moral issues.

 

[Fervent]

No one disagrees that "divine sources" claim authority. What is not established is why anyone should accept that authority. Why should we trusts the priests that present us such laws in the names of those divinities?

The claimed authority is only as good as the proof of the claim.

That's getting outside of the scope of this thread, though it is not the priests that matter but the prophets.

 

[Fervent]

But I act in accordance with my feelings on moral issues because it makes me feel good and in the process it has also kept me in good legal and social standing. Has it not then been a useful guide on moral issues.

Legal and social questions are not strictly speaking morals. If the only thing that matters is your feelings, then you must deny that there is such a thing as right or wrong which renders statements about "morals" moot.

What criteria are you using to say if something is or is not a moral guide? For me it is simply if it allows me to determine my position on moral issues.

If there is no right or wrong, then there are no moral issues. You may as well hold that all of your preferences are moral questions, because there's nothing distinctive about your supposed "moral" feelings.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's getting outside of the scope of this thread, though it is not the priests that matter but the prophets.

It is close to the topic in the OP than your stream of assertions about the existence of absolute morality.

(I have read the words of the prophets written on the subway walls.)

 

[partinobodycular]

It gets me an actual basis for morality that isn't just my personal opinion, which allows me to engage with people who share that foundation and work out normative ethics.

And I would counter with the fact that at least I, with my inferior moral foundation, have the courage to accept my limitations without the need to invoke a higher power to justify the choices that always have been, and always will be mine and mine alone. And if there really is a God, then I would expect Him to be proud of the fact that we humans, in spite of our shortcomings, were able to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, and do to the best of our ability what your Holy book instructed us to do... love our neighbor... not always, not perfectly, but at least freely, and genuinely.

Secular humanity's moral foundation may not be as objective as yours, but I would argue that that makes our adherence to it even more impressive, because we don't have to be coerced into it. We do it, simply because we choose to.

 

[Fervent]

It is close to the topic in the OP than your stream of assertions about the existence of absolute morality.

What assertions are those?

(I have read the words of the prophets written on the subway walls.)

Good for you

 

[Fervent]

And I would counter with the fact that at least I, with my inferior moral foundation, have the courage to accept my limitations without the need to invoke a higher power to justify the choices that always have been, and always will be mine and mine alone. And if there really is a God, then I would expect Him to be proud of the fact that we humans, in spite of our shortcomings, were able to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, and do to the best of our ability what your Holy book instructed us to do... love our neighbor... not always, not perfectly, but at least freely, and genuinely.

I hardly think that God would be proud of humans elevating themselves to His position. And from the Bible, it's clear that when those who feign ignorance of His existence do what is right according to His law they confirm the justice of their condemnation, not curry His favor.

Secular humanity's moral foundation may not be as objective as yours, but I would argue that that makes our adherence to it even more impressive, because we don't have to be coerced into it. We do it, simply because we choose to.

Objectivity is just one of the issues, the principal issue is that it is vacuous and arbitrary. So there's nothing to adhere to, because it is purely at the whim of the individual.

 

[partinobodycular]

And from the Bible, it's clear that when those who feign ignorance of His existence do what is right according to His law they confirm the justice of their condemnation, not curry His favor.

I'm not looking to curry God's favor. I do what my heart tells me is right, not what God tells me is right, although I can't really see where there's much of a difference.

 

[Tinker Grey]

on the subway walls

And tenement halls

 

[Fervent]

I'm not looking to curry God's favor. I do what my heart tells me is right, not what God tells me is right, although I can't really see where there's much of a difference.

I was simply responding to

And if there really is a God, then I would expect Him to be proud of the fact that we humans, in spite of our shortcomings, were able to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, and do to the best of our ability what your Holy book instructed us to do... love our neighbor... not always, not perfectly, but at least freely, and genuinely.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What assertions are those?

From the last several days and just the ones that don't require context:

Mine's simple, God determines what is an isn't moral. You think you can establish morality without God, so the only discussion I need is to point out your ersatz morality doesn't measure up.

God said it, case closed.

Divine sources speak from authority, because humans are blind men leading blind men.

I'll take His word over yours, but your opinion is noted.

You asked what God said, I provided what God said. Sure, it needs to be sorted out and interpreted but my denial of reason in morality isn't about being able to move from a moral foundation to a workable frame. It's getting that moral foundation at all through our reasoning faculties.

God knows what is right, and He decides what that is. Not me.

Are those enough? I'm not calling you out, just pointing out that you are making assertions and providing examples. In those posts and hundreds of others you have made it clear that your position on morality is that it comes from God and it is absolute. The thread is about morality *w/o* absolute morality. Now perhaps your presuppositions are so baked into to your thinking you don't view it as an assertion.

This recent reply to @partinobodycular illustrates the impact of your presuppositions.

I hardly think that God would be proud of humans elevating themselves to His position. And from the Bible, it's clear that when those who feign ignorance of His existence do what is right according to His law they confirm the justice of their condemnation, not curry His favor.

No one is "feigning ignorance" of you god. We just don't think he exists. I don't know how hard it is realize that other people just don't believe in your god. They believe in gods that you don't believe in and vice versa.

Good for you