The Moral Argument (revamped)

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You should leave that to the atheists. Or they might give back that compliment by objectively articulate Christians' view on morality.

Do you disagree with my statement? Can you explain why my comment about the atheistic worldview on morality is wrong?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

In regards to the atheistic worldview, there is really only one logical answer when it comes to morality. That morality exists, but it is entirely subjective to the individual and the standard at which morality is measured is nothing more than the subjective opinion of the majority which imposes their moral views onto the minority. Furthermore, since the majority which establishes these standards shifts with time and culture, the standard itself shifts with time and culture. Thus, the secular standard of morality is neither objective nor absolute in any sense. Although not perfect, it is a standard which has worked for thousands of years. There is really no other logical alternative that will stand any critical evaluation. Unless you evoke some higher authority which established some moral law at which humanity must follow.

I would clarify that "what is good for society" is a standard, however, society is a collective of the subjective. Because the demographic of society changes with time and culture, the things that may be considered beneficial or harmful to society may change. Thus further demonstrating that both morality and the standard at which it is measured is nether objective nor absolute.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You could also sprinkle in Euthyphro's dilemma for kix...

What about the Euthyphro's dilemma? It isn't really a dilemma at all. Because God is the sole creator who bestows purpose onto His creations, He is both the standard and declarer of goodness. Not either/or...both.

 

[cvanwey]

What about the Euthyphro's dilemma? It isn't really a dilemma at all. Because God is the sole creator who bestows purpose onto His creations, He is both the standard and declarer of goodness. Not either/or...both.

How can I argue with such an unfalsifiable claim

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

How can I argue with such an unfalsifiable claim

LOL, Fair enough. The most perfect arguments are the ones that are unfalsifiable.

 

[cvanwey]

LOL, Fair enough. The most perfect arguments are the ones that are unfalsifiable.

Yes, just like the alien, who probed my rectal cavity, on my way to work yesterday; which made me 3 minutes late

 

[Freodin]

Do you disagree with my statement? Can you explain why my comment about the atheistic worldview on morality is wrong?

It's not so much what you said, but what you didn't say. Your next post clarifies that very well.

Atheistic morality is something that "the majority imposes on the minority". That is, again, not quite right. It is a much different, interacting process that produces "morality".

Perhaps it would be best to use a comparison: language.
Language is definitly not objective, as evidenced by the existence of a multitude of different languages. Language is also not exclusively subjective, as the purpose of language would be subverted if it was. Language is also not "imposed" by a majority or powerful entity... it is learned and aquired.

And it is also a rather fitting example if you consider alternative systems. Language could be "imposed". Languages can be constructed and their usage could be prescribed. But in such a case, there need to be a reason behind it.

In the case of "morality" and "evil", such an underlying reason is still lacking.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Yes, just like the alien, who probed my rectal cavity, on my way to work yesterday; which made me 3 minutes late

Aliens probing rectal cavities is an absurd lie propagated by crazy conspiracy theorists. Probes are actually installed in the base of the neck to transmit subliminal instructions into our brains.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

It's not so much what you said, but what you didn't say. Your next post clarifies that very well.

Atheistic morality is something that "the majority imposes on the minority". That is, again, not quite right. It is a much different, interacting process that produces "morality".

I actually said that morality is subjective. The Standard at which morality is measured is established by the majority and is imposed onto the minority. Who else but the majority can declare ones actions as being wrong and impose their moral standard onto the individual through legal or sociological means?

 

[Freodin]

I actually said that morality is subjective. The Standard at which morality is measured is established by the majority and is imposed onto the minority. Who else but the majority can declare ones actions as being wrong and impose their moral standard onto the individual through legal or sociological means?

Hm... I don't know. Perhaps some powerful entity? Perhaps some all-powerful entity?

But, no, you are still not quite correct. The morality is not "imposed" by a majority (or other entity with the power to do that)... it is "established". Learned, transmitted, transferred.

Acting on a moral code against someone disagreeing or acting against it... that is not equal to "imposing" your moral code. You might call it "enforcing" it... but that is not the method by which the morality gets transferred.

But I really want to go back to the question of the underlying reason. What makes evil "evil", in an "objective" way?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Hm... I don't know. Perhaps some powerful entity? Perhaps some all-powerful entity?

But, no, you are still not quite correct. The morality is not "imposed" by a majority (or other entity with the power to do that)... it is "established". Learned, transmitted, transferred.

So what happens to people who exhibit behaviors that are considered to be harmful to society? Answer: The moral standards of the majority are imposed onto those people through threat of incarceration or institutionalization by force (sometimes at the point of a gun) as a result of the laws the majority established which authorized such imposition.

 

[gaara4158]

Can you please repost? I am not sure I remember a question. Thanks for the comment.

There are obvious practical reasons to uphold common courtesies. What else do you need?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

There are obvious practical reasons to uphold common courtesies. What else do you need?

Yes. Common courtesies like a greeting, "I am Connor, the android sent by Cyberlife."

 

[Freodin]

So what happens to people who exhibit behaviors that are considered to be harmful to society? Answer: The moral standards of the majority are imposed onto those people through threat of incarceration or institutionalization by force (sometimes at the point of a gun) as a result of the laws the majority established which authorized such imposition.

I think we are talking about two different concepts here.

You are talking about the repercussions that holding a different "moral standard" can have for the holder, deriving from the actions that the disagreeing "majority" take. (Note that it only takes superiour power, not necessarily numbers.)

I am talking about the origin and developement of "moral standards". You can be forced to abide and act to a "moral standard" - basically any ruleset - that you personally disagree with.

But the question that this doesn't answer is: why hold to any "moral standard" at all? Does this "imposing" by the powers change people's "moral standards"?

And the point that I haven't even touched yet: have you considered that what you asserted as the "atheistic" view on morality is in fact the theistic view on morality... just with a deity in place of what you call the "majority"?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I think we are talking about two different concepts here.

You are talking about the repercussions that holding a different "moral standard" can have for the holder, deriving from the actions that the disagreeing "majority" take. (Note that it only takes superiour power, not necessarily numbers.)

I am talking about the origin and developement of "moral standards". You can be forced to abide and act to a "moral standard" - basically any ruleset - that you personally disagree with.

But the question that this doesn't answer is: why hold to any "moral standard" at all? Does this "imposing" by the powers change people's "moral standards"?

Okay, I think I see where the confusion was and I believe we are on the same page now.

And the point that I haven't even touched yet: have you considered that what you asserted as the "atheistic" view on morality is in fact the theistic view on morality... just with a deity in place of what you call the "majority"?

No, this is not the theistic view on morality. Particularly, not the view of morality from a Christian worldview.

 

[Freodin]

Okay, I think I see where the confusion was and I believe we are on the same page now.


No, this is not the theistic view on morality. Particularly, not the view of morality from a Christian worldview.

So, it is not the atheistic view on morality. It is not the theistic view on morality.

Why are we talking about it?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

So, it is not the atheistic view on morality. It is not the theistic view on morality.

Why are we talking about it?

Because we are talking about the Moral Argument which suggests that without some higher power, it is impossible for morality to be objective and any standard for measuring morality to be absolute. Morality is merely an invention society has fabricated for its own benefit.

 

[Freodin]

Because we are talking about the Moral Argument which suggests that without some higher power, it is impossible for morality to be objective and any standard for measuring morality to be absolute. Morality is merely an invention society has fabricated for its own benefit.

That brings us back to my question if that isn't the theistic model of morality that you are talking about.

Here you spell out the point: the "Moral Argument (for God)" suggest that you need a "higher power" to create an "objective morality" and an "absolute standard". That is asserting exactly the point I was trying to make: the theists (these theists) insist that you need a "power" to make "morality". They also insist that this morality is "imposed" - in the way you used this term - on the "minority": those with less power (which would be everyone.) Those who disagree with this "morality" will also be subjected to threats even worse that "incarceration or institutionalization by force".

So it seems to me that this is exactly what the theistic - especially the Christian - view on morality is.

On the other hand, you again assert the idea that "morality" is a societal "invention". I don't know: there may atheists who think that. But it is not the atheistic view on morality.
A different - I'd say more accurate - view would be that morality is a necessarily emergin property of "society".

 

[gaara4158]

Yes. Common courtesies like a greeting, "I am Connor, the android sent by Cyberlife."

Exactly

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Because we are talking about the Moral Argument which suggests that without some higher power, it is impossible for morality to be objective

That suggestion contains the assumption that theism provides its own case for an objective standard, which it doesn't. You don't get to just start there and expect people to meet you.

and any standard for measuring morality to be absolute.

Why would I want an 'absolute' morality in the first place? A moral philosophy that leaves no room for situational ethics is worthless.

Morality is merely an invention society has fabricated for its own benefit.

I don't think that's the case, but suppose it was - so what?

What about the Euthyphro's dilemma? It isn't really a dilemma at all. Because God is the sole creator who bestows purpose onto His creations, He is both the standard and declarer of goodness. Not either/or...both.

That does not solve the dilemma.

Does Yahweh have control over his own nature? If yes, then it's arbitrary.

Does Yahweh not have control over his own nature? If yes, then he's only the middleman between himself and whatever force is actually in control.

You're right back to the same two horns of the dilemma - arbitrariness, or independent standard.