I am not speaking for him, but I would guess that they are grounded in god's proclamation of morality. If god says X is wrong, X is wrong. If god says Y is good, Y is good.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then, if I may give back the question you asked in your last response to me: What are these moral concepts grounded in?
The proposition that morals claims are neither objectively true nor false does not fall under that definition of self-refuting.
I think that there are objective truths, but not when it comes to morality.
For example, someone here might feel that homosexuality is immoral, but others might not see it that way. I don't see anything wrong with homosexuals legally marrying, but others might see it as 'immoral.'
Who is right? Objectively, neither is 'right,' but we both feel that we are...
I'm not sure there can ever be such a thing as objective morality, because where would the objectivity come from, to begin with?
One small note: Secular humanism doesn't claim that man is the measure of all things. It merely claims that humans are capable of being good without god. That doesn't preclude positions like objective moral realism.The secular humanist replies by saying that man is the measure of all things. God is dead declared Nietzsche and so man leaps at the opportunity to take His place as the anchor of moral values. Man now is at the helm and determines what is morally obligatory by appealing to what he believes promotes human flourishing or something akin to that. So says the humanist.
Man has always been a "cosmic orphan in an uncaring, indifferent, amoral universe."Man now is a cosmic orphan in an uncaring, indifferent, amoral universe.
No secular humanist "knows he has cut ties with the home in which he was raised and with the father who cared for him" because no secular humanist believes he ever had such a father. You are using language for dramatic effect rather than philosophical clarity.Thus he girds up his loins, lifts his chin up, and goes out, like a runaway teenager runs from the home of his father, with dreams and hopes of finally being free from that bondage and tyranny of absolutism. He finally feels free to command his own destiny on his own terms, without having to be subject to the dictates of authority. He has become his own authority, determining in and of himself, what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, what is meaningful and what is not.
He knows he has cut ties with the home in which he was raised and with the father who cared for him.
He can never go back there now. For to do so would be to cut him where it would hurt most and he would once again have to be subject to another's dictates instead of his own.
There never was solid ground. There may have been the illusion of solid ground, but it never existed.There is no longer the solid ground beneath his feet that he once stood firmly upon and which afforded him that sense of stability and safety, but he knows he cannot go back so he tries to convince himself that he never really needed those things in the first place.
One day, while he is hopping and skipping along, he sees a young guy walking his way. He figures he too will be good company so he runs to greet him. To his dismay, upon coming to within arms reach of him, the man begins to beat him and strip him of his clothes. Bewildered, he exclaims: "That's wrong! You shouldn't do this!"
This remark made the man stop. He then speaks: "Surely dude, you must have forgotten where you are at. You are not at home anymore boy, you ran away remember? Just exactly who do you think you are anyway......my father?"[/FONT]
One small note: Secular humanism doesn't claim that man is the measure of all things. It merely claims that humans are capable of being good without god. That doesn't preclude positions like objective moral realism.
Man has always been a "cosmic orphan in an uncaring, indifferent, amoral universe."
No secular humanist "knows he has cut ties with the home in which he was raised and with the father who cared for him" because no secular humanist believes he ever had such a father. You are using language for dramatic effect rather than philosophical clarity.
Again, people who attempt to describe morality without god do not believe that there is a father to return to, so it makes no sense to say the he or she won't go back because they would have to be subject to another's dictates.
There is no "going back" because there is no god. Either we try to be moral on our own and accomplish our goals of having a better society, or we burn the whole place down. Those are the two options. There is no father here.
There never was solid ground. There may have been the illusion of solid ground, but it never existed.
This is a sentiment, nothing more. It's like "Boo! I hate green beans," only much stronger. The speaker may believe he is uttering some objective moral fact, but no such fact exists.
That's a cute story, but it's clearly designed for drama more than substance. It doesn't matter if you think a world with no objective moral facts isn't desirable, and may even be scary; it being undesirable doesn't make it false.
Atheists, where do moral obligations and prohibitions come from if there is no moral law giver to prohibit or prescribe moral duties?
Stating something in an affirmative way doesnt make it objective. in order to be objective, it must be demonstrable.But thats not what you said. You made a definite statemnet about me being wrong. It wasn't you believed I was wrong you said I was wrong in an affirmative way.
Thats where people go wrong. they see the different circumstances that are applied to each situation as a new version of that moral so they think that the original moral has been changed itself thus making a new moral for killing. But murder is murder. But if there are mitigating circumstances that will allow for a good reason to breach that moral, IE cockroaches spread disease and then can cause sickness and possible worse so it is good to rid an environment of disease carrying insects then this is a justified action under the same original moral.
Well what is written down for what is claimed He said is consistent throughout the New testament. The words that are written in red which indicate what He said are clear and simple.
So at the very least we would have to give some benefit of the doubt that all of this effort and writing which has stood the test of time must have some of it attributed to Jesus even if people think its a bunch of silly sayings. Theres just to many people and to much history for people to wright it all off as lies and myths.
No! What is considered true is determined on a case by case basis. What might be true in one situation may not be true in another. (as youve admitted to above) That makes truth subjective.But the meaning of truth is that there is but one truth. That is what truth is. To say its subjective is contradictory.
I said there is no OBJECTIVE truth.That doesn't make sense. You saying there is no truth is making a statemnet of truth.
By the fact that you are claiming truth is not objective. Is saying that truth is subjective a true statemnet. If its a subjective statemnet then I will say that truth is objective. If you say I'm wrong then you are claiming the truth which is an objective statement.
Now I'm really confused.
This conversation is not about "absolute truth" we are discussing subjective vs objective truth.It would be "absolutely true" that "there is no absolute truth". Which directly violates the law of non-contradiction. A very basic law of logic. We must conclude that true exists and it objective. This is the foundation of epistemology. If truth did not exist, knowledge of it being so would be impossible.
You have unintentionally asked the one question that was the impetus for me starting this thread.
In your thought process, God is not an option for grounding moral values and duties and thus you rightly ask, "if not God, then where would they come from?"
I personally think that you will have a more productive discussion if you purge your vocabularies of the words "subjective" and "objective", which I have seen defined in so many different ways in the past that the words end up misleading in discussion.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Those words have very clear definitions
Our sense of morality (i.e. the habit of asking if a certain action is recommendable or not) has its origin in the awareness that no man is an island.Atheists, where do moral obligations and prohibitions come from
Yes, several of them! That's why the words end up misleading.
But use them if they seem to advance the discussion. I personally don't see any evidence of that here, though.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Our sense of morality (i.e. the habit of asking if a certain action is recommendable or not) has its origin in the awareness that no man is an island.
Not all moral approaches deal in the currency of "obligations" and "prohibitions", though. Mine doesn´t.
Thats not the type of program we ought to run on though, if we are to be a healthy species. We ought to be advancing sustainable technology, and philosophy insights, not killing cats for fun.What you are describing is morality as a system of conditionals. "If health is experientially better, then it ought to be chosen."
That works well with things like health preferences (which aren't actually moral issues of any substance), but it starts to get shaky for most people in real cases. Imagine if I said "If killing puppies for fun is experientially better, then it ought to be chosen."
Without any desires we would not even act. There has to be motivation for there to be morality in the first place.That wouldn't jive for most people wishing to defend moral obligations because an obligation is supposed to be a motivation that exists independent of our own desires.
Good point, but morality is not just desire, it involves raitonal insight. Unless, of course, you don't care.Morality as desire is a morality devoid of obligations.
Thats not the type of program we ought to run on though, if we are to be a healthy species. We ought to be advancing sustainable technology, and philosophy insights, not killing cats for fun.
That isn't true. We might need a desire in order to act, but the existence of a moral fact doesn't depend on our desires. If it is true that torture is wrong, then it is wrong whether I desire to avoid torture or not.Without any desires we would not even act. There has to be motivation for there to be morality in the first place.
Yes, of course morality involves rational insight. I don't think anyone disputed that. But your claim was that morality was essentially a set of conditionals based on our desires (ie, "If you want to be healthy, you should exercise). That sort of system doesn't compel us to do things that are contrary to our desires, which is an important feature of a good moral system.Good point, but morality is not just desire, it involves raitonal insight. Unless, of course, you don't care.
E.g. a moral approach that is concerned with considerations of the countless aspects of one action, and restricts itself to determining whether an action is must be called "good" or "bad" depending on the moral meta-moral paradigms a particular person holds.Please describe to me a moral system that has no obligations or prohibitions.
Since, as I said, it doesn´t deal in the currency of obligations and prohibitions, it obviously doesn´t.Does it not prohibit torturing babies for sheer pleasure?
Yes.Would you not be obligated to stop a small child from walking into traffic on a busy highway?
E.g. a moral approach that restricts itself to giving recommendations instead of obligations and prohibitions.
From your imagination, from your reasoning, and from the perceptions of the effects of your actions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?