The Moral Argument (revamped)

[durangodawood]

Has anyone been able what explain what "absolute morality" even means?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

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".

I see your point and it is a very common impression to have. However, according to a Christian worldview, source which makes this "higher power" the standard and declarer of morality is not His might, it is His role as the creator. God created humanity and as creator of humanity, he and he alone has the authority to bestow a purpose onto humanity. It is this purpose that drives what is good or bad for humanity.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Exactly

I am sure there are hundreds of people reading that post wondering what the heck we are talking about. Lol

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Has anyone been able what explain what "absolute morality" even means?

It would basically mean that something would be morally right or wrong in all times and in all situations for all people regardless of subjective opinion.

 

[durangodawood]

It would basically mean that something would be morally right or wrong in all times and in all situations for all people regardless of subjective opinion.

Having a hard time grasping this.

Where does such an absolute moral exist except in the (subjective) minds of people? I mean, I've heard people say such and such is an absolute moral, but no one can show it. When all you have is talk, thats indicative of subjectivity.

 

[Freodin]

I see your point and it is a very common impression to have. However, according to a Christian worldview, source which makes this "higher power" the standard and declarer of morality is not His might, it is His role as the creator. God created humanity and as creator of humanity, he and he alone has the authority to bestow a purpose onto humanity. It is this purpose that drives what is good or bad for humanity.

Yes, I understand this view. I hope you will also understand why this is appearing irrational to someone who does not a priori accept this very concept.

Bascially you are introducing a definitional answer to your problem. But of course this doesn't really answer the problem: it simply asserts that you did.

It also doesn't really address my objection. After all his "role as the creator" is just using different words for the same idea. His "authority" is based on his power to create... and destroy.

 

[Freodin]

It would basically mean that something would be morally right or wrong in all times and in all situations for all people regardless of subjective opinion.

That again is an interesting point, especially considering the lengths that the proponents of "absolute morality" have to go to to find such "absolute" situations.

Just look at the example given in the OP. Torturing babies for fun is evil.
Is torturing evil? Ah, this is situational, as the torture apologets will tell you. Is torturing babies evil? There are enough Christian apologets who will defend going against an alledged terrorists children to "make him talk".
Is it the "fun" part then? Ok. If you say so.

So what if this hypothetical God would torture babies for fun. He's the one with the authority to bestow meaning to his creation... so if he was to create babies as objects for his amusement via torture... it would be right. Or not?

It seems that "absolute morality" is horribly situational. Or subjective.

 

[createdtoworship]

I think you may have me confused. I am not an atheist. I am just trying to objectively articulate their view on morality.

ok, sorry if I throw you in the mix, you'll have to forgive me, it's sort of difficult to track everyones religion or lack. But if you have any more questions please let me know.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's interesting.

There is at least ONE atheist here who would have responded to the assertion that "God would be evil if he tortured babies for fun" with "Is he? Why? What would make him 'evil' in this case?"

But I have to admit that your statement is still correct: this is not an atheist you have "talked to". This is the atheist who is still standing in the background shouting: "You haven
t yet answered my darned question!"

that was just one of many examples, can you point out another country that exalts purely selfish behavior? Instead of feeding their children for example, they eat their children....as that is what chimpanzees do (which are supposed to be evolutionarily similar to humans). I don't see animals sharing food, even the ones with large brains, yet I see humans doing it. There are 60,000 charities in the united states that distribute food. Do you see that in the animal kingdom? I don't think so. But to answer your question, God would be evil because he tortured babies for fun. In the same way hitler was evil, or mussolini. Most agree that they are evil, and if you in fact don't, then you probably need to start a thread on that very topic, as this is not a thread on defining evil, but rather using the realized evil in the world as a reason to believe in a universal moral code.

 

[createdtoworship]

There are enough Christian apologets who will defend going against an alledged terrorists children to "make him talk".
Is it the "fun" part then? Ok. If you say so.

wow, never heard a single instance of this. Not even in a professional way, that is not for fun. Then adding the fun part to it, totally disproves your allegation that God torturing babies for fun is not evil. I used that illustration in the beginning yes, but there are many other examples of moral codes and I am not stretching to find them. They are all over the place. As I said in my last post.

 

[Freodin]

that was just one of many examples, can you point out another country that exalts purely selfish behavior? Instead of feeding their children for example, they eat their children....as that is what chimpanzees do (which are supposed to be evolutionarily similar to humans). I don't see animals sharing food, even the ones with large brains, yet I see humans doing it. There are 60,000 charities in the united states that distribute food. Do you see that in the animal kingdom? I don't think so. But to answer your question, God would be evil because he tortured babies for fun. In the same way hitler was evil, or mussolini. Most agree that they are evil, and if you in fact don't, then you probably need to start a thread on that very topic, as this is not a thread on defining evil, but rather using the realized evil in the world as a reason to believe in a universal moral code.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer, and I really don't understand why it is so difficult for you to answer this question.

But to answer your question, God would be evil because he tortured babies for fun.

See, that wasn't the question. The question was: WHY would he be evil if he tortured babies for fun? What is it that is "evil" about torturing babies for fun.

You cannot simply assert: "It just is." That's not a basis for an objective and absolute morality.

 

[HitchSlap]

then how can you call God evil, under any circumstance? For example every atheist I have talked to said a God would be evil if he tortured babies for fun. If morality is not absolute, then your condemnation of anything is simply your opinion and not worth reading, listening to, or posting on here for that matter, as it would simply be one persons viewpoint. And not the collective.

Would it help you to understand it better, if we both agreed torturing my baby, and torturing your baby is evil? And if we could agree on that, then we might also agree that slapping each other across the face when we greet each other is worse than shaking hands. Maybe we could go from there? What do you think?

Seriously, it's not as hard as you want it to be.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't know how I can make it any clearer, and I really don't understand why it is so difficult for you to answer this question.


See, that wasn't the question. The question was: WHY would he be evil if he tortured babies for fun? What is it that is "evil" about torturing babies for fun.

You cannot simply assert: "It just is." That's not a basis for an objective and absolute morality.

I will give you a hint: here in princetons online dictionary. On their dictionary they said evil is: "having or exerting a malignant influence." So the next question is if god tortures babies for fun, is a malignant influence, then yes he would be evil, according to princeton. So 99% of the atheists I have talked to believe torturing babies for fun is a malignant influence. Even the ones on here. So If you disagree with this, then you are either disagreeing with princeton, or you are disagreeing with 99% of atheists. source: WordNet Search - 3.1

 

[Uber Genius]

the moral argument for God's existence is basically summed up like this, real simple. How does an atheist account for morality? In other words, what makes a God who tortures babies for fun, evil? Or a God who loves babies, Good? Who or what law does an atheist adhere to to make that call? IT is the moral law. If the moral law does not exist, then we are forced to vote for morality in which the atheist is forced to declare that there is not proper moral ground to declare any act of God evil without evidence (as voting for morality is not empirical methodology).

even stanford encyclopedia of philosophy states this:

"the fact that we humans are aware of moral facts is itself surprising and calls for an explanation."

Moral Arguments for the Existence of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

any thoughts?

Engaging inferences about the nature of certain features of our external world seems to be a valuable way to ascertain if they accumulate towards the existence of God.

Further any person that has the sense to use Stanford as their source is well on their way to knowledge. Rare indeed. Thx.

 

[createdtoworship]

Having a hard time grasping this.

Where does such an absolute moral exist except in the (subjective) minds of people? I mean, I've heard people say such and such is an absolute moral, but no one can show it. When all you have is talk, thats indicative of subjectivity.

for example where in the world is selfishness honored among human beings. Look to any culture and tribe, and religion and find somewhere where selfishness is a valued trait. On the other hand find a culture where helping others is not a good trait to have. In other words find a group of humans who think wrong is right and right is wrong. And you will not be able to find one. That is because regardless of religion or culture we have a moral code we live by. The existance of this moral code, is not fully comprehended by athiests. And when I ask who or what created the moral code, I usually get a reply that instinct creates a family type of love and betterment of individuals or groups. Yet I don't see sperm whales (who have a larger brain than humans) sharing their hunting ground waters with other species of whales or even whales of their own species, I do see a lack of love for one another in the animal kingdom. For example a chimpanze can actually eat it's own young. And humans are supposed to be very similiar to chimpanzees, evolutionary wise. Yet humans rather than doing that, have passed laws forbidding cannibalism. Dogs even when running in packs will not let the other dog/dogs eat first, they will all dive in and eat as much and as fast as possible. This is universal in the animal kingdom. When it comes to sharing food, however humans are much different, there are over 60,000 charities in the united states alone, that give food to low income or homeless individuals, this is all supported by humans. We obviously are more moral than animals, and even more moral than animals with bigger brains. So evolution cannot explain why we as humans live by what it appears to be a moral code. Can you explain the origin of the moral code?

 

[HitchSlap]

Can you explain the origin of the moral code?

Now you're just being daft. It was literally pointed out by Tinker Grey in post #2, we're a social species.
Full stop.

We learned thousand of years ago as a species, that if we cooperate, we don't have to spend all of our time hunting, gathering and shelter building. This is all you need. Study it as much / little as you like, but this is a sufficient explanation that comports with reality.

 

[Uber Genius]

We evolved as a social species. By definition, that means we cooperate ... it's what it is to be a 'social species'. Dolphins, chimps, various birds, are social species. That means that there is some level of cooperation between members of the species.

Those things that are perceived to hurt society are deemed immoral. Those things that benefit the society are deemed moral. Those things that neither help nor harm are amoral.

So this is a denial that objective moral values exist.
Fair enough. So that would entail that there are no culturally independent values or duties. Fair enough.

On that view it seems that you would support the German Final Solution as moral. Which was of course the same argument they gave at Nuremberg.

Further, you reach your moral nihilism via a genetic fallacy. Assuming that explaining how we come to perceive moral values and duties explains or explains away their existence.

Further, the premise in various versions of the moral argument are justified by our uniform experience of obvious truths, exclusive of belief in God.

William Lane Craig replies to similar objections this way:

"That such an appeal is not question-begging should be evident from the fact that the majority of non-theists, including atheists, believe in the truth of the premiss precisely on this basis.

Louise Antony, herself a non-theist, put it so well in our debate a few years ago at U Mass, Amherst: Any argument for moral scepticism will be based upon premisses which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves. That seems to me quite right. Therefore, moral scepticism is unjustifiable.

The humanist philosopher Peter Cave gives the following example:

Whatever sceptical arguments may be brought against our belief that killing the innocent is morally wrong, we are more certain that the killing is morally wrong than that the argument is sound. . . . Torturing an innocent child for the sheer fun of it is morally wrong. Full stop.[1]

In moral experience we encounter objective moral values and duties, and so, in the absence of some sort of defeater of that belief, we are perfectly rational to hold to it. Moral realism is the default position, and the moral sceptic needs to provide some powerful defeater to overcome it.

One can make the same point another way by comparing, as William Sorley does (p. 128 of On Guard) our apprehension of the moral realm with our apprehension of the physical realm. Just as we can’t get outside our moral perceptions to try to justify them, so we cannot get outside our sensory perceptions to try to justify them. Just as, in the absence of some defeater, we trust our sense perceptions that there is a realm of objectively existing physical objects around us, so we trust our moral perceptions that there is an objectively existing realm of moral values and duties. For any argument for scepticism about our moral perceptions we could run a parallel argument for scepticism about our sensory perceptions. But you’d have to be crazy to doubt the veridicality of your sense perceptions of a realm of objectively existing physical objects. Similarly, until we are given a defeater, we ought to trust our moral perception of a realm of objectively existing values and duties."


For more see: Justification of the Moral Argument’s Second Premiss | Reasonable Faith

Secondly:

"How is moral knowledge possible? This question is central in moral epistemology and marks a cluster of problems. The most important are the following.
4-Evolutionary: Where do human morals come from? A familiar and widely accepted answer is that human morals are in essence, despite their modern variations, Darwinian adaptations. As such morals are about survival and reproduction and have nothing to do with moral truth. Moreover, while the intuitive, emotional basis of moral judgments was useful to our ancestors, this basis is out-dated and unreliable in modern industrial society and thus current moral thought in such society, which inevitably embeds this basis, is without rational foundation."

For more see:

Moral Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[HitchSlap]

So this is a denial that objective moral values exist.
Fair enough. So that would entail that there are no culturally independent values or duties. Fair enough.

On that view it seems that you would support the German Final Solution as moral. Which was of course the same argument they gave at Nuremberg.

So much twaddle. Consent is simply ignored because you want to ignore it?

 

[createdtoworship]

Would it help you to understand it better, if we both agreed torturing my baby, and torturing your baby is evil? And if we could agree on that, then we might also agree that slapping each other across the face when we greet each other is worse than shaking hands. Maybe we could go from there? What do you think?

Seriously, it's not as hard as you want it to be.

I answered this in the last few posts, please feel free to comment. Thanks (torture is not wrong in an of itself, i.e for national security, but doing it simply for giggles would be wrong yes? If you don't feel so, then please this thread is probably not for you.) But feel free to explain why it's not evil, if you so feel inclined.

 

[gaara4158]

for example where in the world is selfishness honored among human beings. Look to any culture and tribe, and religion and find somewhere where selfishness is a valued trait. On the other hand find a culture where helping others is not a good trait to have. In other words find a group of humans who think wrong is right and right is wrong. And you will not be able to find one. That is because regardless of religion or culture we have a moral code we live by. The existance of this moral code, is not fully comprehended by athiests. And when I ask who or what created the moral code, I usually get a reply that instinct creates a family type of love and betterment of individuals or groups. Yet I don't see sperm whales (who have a larger brain than humans) sharing their hunting ground waters with other species of whales or even whales of their own species, I do see a lack of love for one another in the animal kingdom. For example a chimpanze can actually eat it's own young. And humans are supposed to be very similiar to chimpanzees, evolutionary wise. Yet humans rather than doing that, have passed laws forbidding cannibalism. Dogs even when running in packs will not let the other dog/dogs eat first, they will all dive in and eat as much and as fast as possible. This is universal in the animal kingdom. When it comes to sharing food, however humans are much different, there are over 60,000 charities in the united states alone, that give food to low income or homeless individuals, this is all supported by humans. We obviously are more moral than animals, and even more moral than animals with bigger brains. So evolution cannot explain why we as humans live by what it appears to be a moral code. Can you explain the origin of the moral code?

See if you can answer this yourself. What would happen to humans as a whole if we did not tend to live by a moral code?