"Ought"

[Archaeopteryx]

And they will say He is not worthy of worship because He is in some way immoral. His failure to fulfill certain moral obligations precludes Him from being worthy of worship.

But from whence come these obligations if God does not exist?

You're assuming that moral obligations come from God. Obviously the vast majority of atheists disagree.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Seems you agree with me. Apart from a competent moral prescriber, the notions of moral prescriptions and moral duties and obligations are unintelligible.

How is competence here defined?

 

[The Cadet]

But from whence come these obligations if God does not exist?

Rational interest in the well-being of humans.

"Ought" necessarily has to do with some goal state. "I ought to move my pawn to D4" is meaningless without keeping the goal of "winning a chess game" in mind. "I ought not kill" is meaningless without some goal, be it the well-being of society or following the commands of a god, but it does not necessarily imply any specific goal, merely that there is some goal. And the well-being of the human species matters to each and every one of us, while following the commands of a god can be downright awful. If god commanded you to rape, torture, and murder children, would you say that that is moral?

 

[now faith]

God is a liars paradox to a Athiest.

 

[Freodin]

Of course ought implies an entity making moral judgments, specifically the one saying "ought."

There is a subjective "ought" which is meaningless and merely whining. If there is an "ought" which is objective, what can that possibly be but God's own point of view?

When an atheist says things ought to be a certain way, he is imposing his own desires upon the universe. The universe doesn't much care.

"God's own point of view"... that would be subjective, wouldn't it?
If God says "ought"... he is imposing his own desires upon the universe, isn't he?

The (theological) problem here is: God is said to be the ultimate authority. He is "the Creator". Imposing his desire is what he does.

So if God says "ought"... and it isn't... there does seem to be some kind of problem.

 

[plummyy]

Atheists do not use the word in the sense you are using it though.

"Atheists" ? I wonder what you suppose the people you've been talking to in this thread call themselves, if not atheists, even though they explicitly do. They are atheists that are using the word in the sense that that they are using it, and are not using it in the sense that you imply they are. Atheists "ought" not say what they don't want to, and most of us don't.

The most common objection to Christianity that I have heard goes something like,

God ought not to have wanted people to worship Him. Since He does, I cannot go along with that.

I don't know any Atheist who would say that. Perhaps it could be said in the context of questioning why religious folk would worship, but definitely not for reason why someone is an atheist.... because... being atheist doesn't mean to reject worship of gods you consider real. That would mean this person was not an atheist.

Anti-theist, perhaps, but not atheist.

All of these remarks carry with them the notion that something ought not to be the case, i.e. that God ought not do this or command that or this etc. Or that if God existed, the world ought not to be the way it is...

It's called 'having standards', as it were.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why not?

I'm wondering why you think it does.

But, IMV, "ought" simply has to do with the choice-worthiness of alternatives that allow one to rank them in order of desirability, and thus say which alternatives are preferable to which other alternatives. If alternative A > B > C, one can then say that one ought to do A in preference to B or C. So, if the three little pigs want to avoid the Big Bad Wolf, they ought to build their homes out of brick instead of straw or sticks, given the availability of these materials.

While one could try to ground oughts in some sort of divine plan, one doesn't need to appeal to divine plans in order to make such a ranking. One could use human well-being as an ultimate criterion, and understand this purely in naturalistic terms (no God required). One could also speak simply in terms of hypothetical imperatives, such as with the pigs above, where one simply assumes that avoiding the Big Bad Wolf is desirable.

You simply seem to assume that a divine plan is the only way to speak in terms of oughts. In the history of philosophy, that is clearly not the case.

You must not read people's posts.

Let me clarify something for the purposes of this thread. When I call the Old Testament God "evil", I mean from a human perspective and for the purpose of human decision-making. Earthquakes are "evil" in a similar sense. Cthulhu, a god-like being who has little sympathy or interest in humanity, would be "evil" in that sense, even if Cthulhu is a "good" Cthulhu from his own perspective and nature. Likewise, if you step on an anthill, you might be an evil to the ants, but still a good human being.

So, I'm not insisting that God is a "bad" God from his own perspective. He might very well be a "good" God as far as Gods go because they aren't human beings, and could legitimately choose to step on the Earth as if on an anthill. The question is really how we should evaluate such beings. Do we have obligations toward anthill stompers when we are the ants?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

If there is an "ought" which is objective, what can that possibly be but God's own point of view?

Argument from Incredulity?

It can possibly be something else, such as what is harmonious with human flourishing. I can think of no reason why "God's own point of view" is required for objectivity.

When an atheist says things ought to be a certain way, he is imposing his own desires upon the universe. The universe doesn't much care.

In that case, why should the universe care what God wants?

I don't think that atheists are "imposing their own desires upon the universe", so much as recognizing that the universe provides a natural means to rank values for their contribution to human well-being. It's not the well-being of the universe that anyone cares about (because that doesn't apply to the universe), but the well-being of human beings and its implication for oughts.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

God is a liars paradox to a Athiest.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? I have no clue where you are going with this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Larniavc]

Seems you agree with me. Apart from a competent moral prescriber, the notions of moral prescriptions and moral duties and obligations are unintelligible.

I think that I am a competent moral prescriber. I've done all right, so far.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think that I am a competent moral prescriber. I've done all right, so far.

You probably are, though Christians will normally insist that you are a fallen being and cannot be as competent as God is in prescribing morality.

But if you aren't competent, one wonders how you can be competent enough to understand and apply the moral message of the Bible, even in a robotic fashion. And if God is supposed to possess one and take over one's personality like a ghost, what does that have to do with morality at all, since morality implies genuine choice, and spirit possessions imply that choice is absent and that God is one's pilot, not one's co-pilot.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's possible that "ought" is being used in different ways in this thread.

Ought can be used in a way that is in my opinion rather silly. Example:

I go to college in order to get a job, but I fail to get a job due to my choice of major and the difficulties of a poor job market. I whine petulantly that "I ought to have a job by now!"

One might have that belief due to means-end reasoning (college degree -> job) and a notion of causality. Of course, it is short-sighted to think that causality will always work in one's favor because there may be causal influences entirely outside of one's control. Even the best laid plans can go awry. One could associate the idea of an ought with divine plans, since they presumably can never go awry. In that case, causality is at least in part divine causality.

But that's not how many atheists are going to view the subject of oughts. Oughts are simply about moral obligations, not about predictions of how the world will unfold. That's an important distinction to make.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

It's possible that "ought" is being used in different ways in this thread.

Ought can be used in a way that is in my opinion rather silly. Example:

I go to college in order to get a job, but I fail to get a job due to my choice of major and the difficulties of a poor job market. I whine petulantly that "I ought to have a job by now!"

One might have that belief due to means-end reasoning (college degree -> job) and a notion of causality. Of course, it is short-sighted to think that causality will always work in one's favor because there may be causal influences entirely outside of one's control. Even the best laid plans can go awry. One could associate the idea of an ought with divine plans, since they presumably can never go awry. In that case, causality is at least in part divine causality.

But that's not how many atheists are going to view the subject of oughts. Oughts are simply about moral obligations, not about predictions of how the world will unfold. That's an important distinction to make.


eudaimonia,

Mark

That was the distinction that our english teacher tried to tell us about "ought" and "should". I wonder if that is easier for a (careful, observant) non-native english speaker to understand, especially for us Germans. Both "ought" and "should" are formed with the conditional form of the verb "sollen".

 

[Eudaimonist]

That was the distinction that our english teacher tried to tell us about "ought" and "should". I wonder if that is easier for a (careful, observant) non-native english speaker to understand, especially for us Germans. Both "ought" and "should" are formed with the conditional form of the verb "sollen".

I'm a native English speaker, and I use ought and should interchangeably. But I suppose there could be nuances that make the words slightly different.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave-W]

Ought doesn't imply a planner.

True. It implies the person saying that is putting their own opinion above everyone else, including God.

 

[Dave-W]

If God were good he ought to act within a reasonable moral standard that we would understand.

I rest my case.

 

[anonymous person]

My mechanic can tell me that if I want to be able to drive my car for a long time, I ought to have regular maintenance performed on it.

But this does not obligate me to have regular maintenance done on my car. I may very well want the engine to blow up so that I can get my dad to buy me a new car.

The fact that an engine performs well under certain conditions in no way obligates me to make sure those conditions are met.

Likewise, in the absence of God, it may be true that our species thrives under certain conditions, like any other thing that can thrive, a blade of grass, or a moth, or a bat, or a roach. But the fact that this is so in no way obligates me to see to it that these conditions are met.

In the absence of God, a male of the homo sapien species has no obligation to refrain from taking another of the same species and forcefully copulating with it. Sharks and other species of life do this frequently.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My mechanic can tell me that if I want to be able to drive my car for a long time, I ought to have regular maintenance performed on it.

But this does not obligate me to have regular maintenance done on my car. I may very well want the engine to blow up so that I can get my dad to buy me a new car.

The fact that an engine performs well under certain conditions in no way obligates me to make sure those conditions are met.

Likewise, in the absence of God, it may be true that our species thrives under certain conditions, like any other thing that can thrive, a blade of grass, or a moth, or a bat, or a roach. But the fact that this is so in no way obligates me to see to it that these conditions are met.

In the absence of God, a male of the homo sapien species has no obligation to refrain from taking another of the same species and forcefully copulating with it. Sharks and other species of life do this frequently.

This claim is in need of support.

 

[The Cadet]

True. It implies the person saying that is putting their own opinion above everyone else, including God.

I rest my case.

I do feel the need to point out that we would not need even a second to condemn any human who acted the way god did. Any animal that acted the way god does in the old testament would have a bounty on its head big enough to interest several small governments. Any parent that acted the way god does in the new testament would have their children taken from them and probably spend the rest of their lives in prison. When I think of morality, I think of human wellbeing, and the actions of the God described in the Bible are as far from that form of morality as I can imagine.

 

[anonymous person]

This claim is in need of support.

I made several claims. Which do you disagree with and why?