The source of moral obligation

[Jeremy E Walker]

For the first time in perhaps the history of our 'debating,' lol ...I agree with you here. I have been thinking about altruism, and it isn't always for 'altruistic' reasons one decides to be benevolent to those around him/her. It can be for selfish reasons actually to want to preserve the community and for one's own survival. Good points.

And yes, it's been a while. You might be happy to learn, I'm going to church with my dad on Xmas Eve this year. First time, in a very long time.

Wish me luck.

Awesome. I will pray for ya, because heck, as you probably could guess, I don't believe in luck!!!

Best Wishes!

 

[Ken-1122]

I will use the above quotes whenever another atheist denies premise 1 of the moral argument.

Why would you assume all atheists are going to share my opinion? My opinions should only be applied to myself; nobody else.

I will furnish them with these quotes from an atheist and then ask them, why, if atheism is true, is Ken incorrect when he says what he says.

Atheism is a default position about a specific claim; that's it. It doesn't address moral truths, or anything else.

Ken

 

[Davian]

What makes God's say so moral?

Might makes right.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

You keep talking about the "subjective" (humanist, materialist, atheist) view of morality, and denounce it as "a hodgepodge of subjective views" and such.

But beyond simply asserting that the origin of moral obligations from God would mean that they are now objective, you never offer any explantion for that... and this is what people are asking you for.

Yes, you are right, that is what people now want me to expound upon and I most assuredly want to. I just do not want to do it here. I may end up starting a new thread on it.

As they - and I - see it, there is no difference between humans "giving" moral laws and God doing so.

I understand. As I stated, I will expound upon this shortly.

...we have lots of examples of human given laws, we know that they did originate from humans and not deities and we can explain the reasons behind their existence.

How do you know that our concept of morality which humans use to formulate various ethical codes does not find its ground in God?

Your sole objection to our position seems to be that human given morals would not be "objective".

Right. They would be subjective.

As Ken-1122 has said:

Morality only exist in the individual’s head; it doesn’t have an actual existence...

Morality is not objective; it’s subjective....

There IS no objective truth about right and wrong; .....

But this "non-objectiveness" does not prevent the whole domain of human laws from working... and you haven't done anything to show that God given laws would be different.

We are not concerned with what "works". I wholeheartedly confess that atheists can and do live what we might call "moral" lives. Nor am I arguing that belief in God is necessary to be moral.

What we are concerned with is what are these concepts grounded in?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Why would you assume all atheists are going to share my opinion?

I don't.

What I do argue is that if metaphysical naturalism is true, then your view regarding the nature of moral values and duties should be the view of every other person who holds the same worldview.

My opinions should only be applied to myself; nobody else.

Your views should be applied to everyone who holds the views you have, lol.

Atheism is a default position about a specific claim; that's it. It doesn't address moral truths, or anything else.

Ken

I know. But every atheist has a worldview. Most atheists are metaphysical naturalists, and thus, I am addressing those that hold it.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

There IS no objective truth about right and wrong; and that’s why we have many of the problems we have now

Look at this closely and tell me what is wrong with it.

 

[bhsmte]

Why would you assume all atheists are going to share my opinion? My opinions should only be applied to myself; nobody else.

Well, as some Christians do, they like to lump all atheists into one barrel, it makes it easier for them.

 

[Deidre32]

Awesome. I will pray for ya, because heck, as you probably could guess, I don't believe in luck!!!

Best Wishes!

haha Yes, I remember ...

 

[talquin]

From wikipedia:

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

And from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Ontological Issues in Metaethics

a. Moral Realisms

If moral truth is understood in the traditional sense of corresponding to reality, what sort of features of reality could suffice to accommodate this correspondence? What sort of entity is “wrongness” or “goodness” in the first place? The branch of philosophy that deals with the way in which things exist is called “ontology”, and metaethical positions may also be divided according to how they envision the ontological status of moral values. Perhaps the biggest schism within metaethics is between those who claim that there are moral facts that are “real” or “objective” in the sense that they exist independently of any beliefs or evidence about them, versus those who think that moral values are not belief-independent “facts” at all, but are instead created by individuals or cultures in sometimes radically different ways. Proponents of the former view are called realists or objectivists; proponents of the latter view are called relativists or subjectivists.



It is not that your explanation is insufficient, it is that your explanation does not even address the issue of ontology, but rather, epistemology.

The title of the thread is 'The source of moral obligation'.

We see others behave in an altruistic manner and observe how their behavior is responded to favorably. In turn, we do altruistic things, as we desire to be treated favorably as well. That's how it works. Very simple.

If you believe we get altruistic tendencies through another means, then please provide some sort of argument that supports your assertion.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The title of the thread is 'The source of moral obligation'.

We see others behave in an altruistic manner and observe how their behavior is responded to favorably. In turn, we do altruistic things, as we desire to be treated favorably as well. That's how it works. Very simple.

If you believe we get altruistic tendencies through another means, then please provide some sort of argument that supports your assertion.

What does any of that have to do with moral obligation?

 

[talquin]

What does any of that have to do with moral obligation?

Why do you think humans have a tendency to behave in an altruistic manner?

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't.

What I do argue is that if metaphysical naturalism is true, then your view regarding the nature of moral values and duties should be the view of every other person who holds the same worldview.

You shouldn’t assume that because a person is atheist, that he is a naturalist as well.

Your views should be applied to everyone who holds the views you have, lol.

Nobody holds all the views I have; but everybody will share some of the views I have; even YOU!

I know. But every atheist has a worldview. Most atheists are metaphysical naturalists, and thus, I am addressing those that hold it.

I am not a metaphysical naturalist.

Look at this closely and tell me what is wrong with it.

There is nothing wrong with it. If morality and right/wrong were objective; meaning it could be demonstrated the same way we can demonstrate 1+1=2, or that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit; that would make life, justice, and the world we live in a lot easier. Unfortunately morality is not objective; it is subjective, so we must judge right and wrong on a case by case basis. And even though we will occasionally get it wrong; all we can do is the best we can

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, as some Christians do, they like to lump all atheists into one barrel, it makes it easier for them.

And because they like to do that; they never get it right

K

 

[stevevw]

Ken-1122

Yes and you’re still wrong.

By making such a definite statemnet like I'm wrong is saying that you believe you know the truth in this matter and I am wrong. That in itself is pointing to an objective truth.

Morality only exist in the individual’s head; it doesn’t have an actual existence.

yes that is what subjectivist say. But I believe it does have an objective root. How does anyone then know who is right about anything. If there is such a thing as truth then why cant there be a truth for morals. If this is the case there can only be one truth and not many.

There IS no objective truth about right and wrong; and that’s why we have many of the problems we have now.

But doesn't it make sense to have a truth about morality. Because we are having so many problems it makes sense that there is one set of morals out there which can then unite us and make it clear about what is right and wrong. Otherwise we are always undermining each other. The very nature of subjectivity promotes defiance and challenges to anything that is instilled as being right or good.

But we have to trust someone’s version because that’s the only choice we have! Wishing for something better doesn’t change that.

But you saying that we have nothing better is making an objective statement. How do you know this and can be so sure. I believe that we have a sinful nature so we are weak as far as following the truth and doing what is right. There is a vulnerability and propensity to be influenced by things like self interest and preservation, power, money and many other things that divert us away from the truth and what is fair and right. People with power tend to take advantage and thats the nature of the beast.

If they are faced with having to make a choice about what is right they will be influenced about looking after themselves first. Not losing their position. Using their position to get revenge or put themselves in a more advantageous position. Money and power corrupts and leads to conflicts. Its happened over and over again and will never change. Despite all our good intentions and talk we still do the same. So its not just about there being subjective views on what is right and wrong its also that we know what is right but we are susceptible to doing what is wrong. We are weak in our sinful natures and we need the power of Christ to be born again so that our natures want to do what is right and pleasing to God.

The problem is, God doesn’t speak for himself; he insists these religious humans that you claim are adding, denying, compromising the true original version; to speak for him!

No God made it clear about who is the spokes person for Him and that was Jesus Christ. He is the only one worthy and above reproach. So we should be promoting Christ. Anyone who is going off this track is promoting man made religion and themselves. The bible tells us exactly what we are to do. That is to spread the Gospel of Christ and nothing else. The trouble is like I said the nature of humans and their sinful ways can even use religion as a cover to practice sin. They deny the truth with well constructed falsehoods which are justified with religion. But still it is easy to spot as the truth of Christ is there for everyone to know.

Why don’t cha ask those christians who insist on a different idea of right and wrong than what Christians believed hundreds of years ago?

The fact is; then Bible was not written by God or Jesus; it was written by men claiming to be speaking for God. And the moral code that was adopted by the men who wrote the scriptures is not the same moral code that we hold onto today; and we are better off because of it.

The moral code that was written from Jesus in the beginning is the same today. If you look at what Jesus said there is not ambiguity. If you are talking about some of the ways in which religion has allowed some things into the church then that is not what Christ taught. They are just watering down the original scriptures so they can allow the best of both worlds and fit in with secular society. But this isn't changing the original morals. This is adding wrong things in according to their views. Just because some add their views doesn't mean they are right. If you notice those who do that are very much in with secular society. Its like a claytons Christian. Being a Christian when your not really a Christian. But if you give me an example I can show you how this is not changing the original morality of Christ but its human views that are added in the name of God.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

There is nothing wrong with it.
Ken

Look at this statement closely:

There IS no objective truth about right and wrong; .....

You say there is no objective truth about right and wrong. But is that true?

Is it true that there is no truth about right and wrong?

This is what is referred to as a self-refuting statement.

In his Introduction to Logic, Harry Gensler defines a self-refuting statement as “[A] statement that makes negative claims so sweeping that it ends up denying itself.”

In other words, it results when an argument or position is undercut by its own criteria.

That is what I was getting at sir.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Look at this statement closely:

There IS no objective truth about right and wrong; .....

You say there is no objective truth about right and wrong. But is that true?

Is it true that there is no truth about right and wrong?

This is what is referred to as a self-refuting statement.

In his Introduction to Logic, Harry Gensler defines a self-refuting statement as “[A] statement that makes negative claims so sweeping that it ends up denying itself.”

In other words, it results when an argument or position is undercut by its own criteria.

The proposition that morals claims are neither objectively true nor false does not fall under that definition of self-refuting.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Awesome question. We can tackle it in a separate thread and or debate.

We've already had several threads on this topic. You know this because you were a participant. Why rehash the same old canards over again?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ultimately, assuming metaphysical naturalism, we really do not know.

Our ability to reason, to think, to draw conclusions and the like is simply a by-product of socio-biological evolutionary processes. All that we are we are by virtue of our particular composition's being adapted to one end, the survival and reproduction of our species. In an 1881 letter, Darwin himself commented on this issue:

In the letter, Charles Darwin expressed doubts about the reason to trust the human mind if evolution is correct. “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”.

One could take the pragmatic approach and say we have to trust our evolved minds to reliably present us with an accurate picture of the physical world existing independently of and external to our familiar five senses because we would not be able to live otherwise.

To which I could say amen! This does nothing in the way of actually showing that our evolved primate minds are capable of giving us a true account of objective reality.

So I think on naturalism, one is just faced with a host of difficulties when it comes to trying to account for everything it must.

Whereas on supernaturalism, human minds are infallible?

Why not epistemology? Well, for one, people are having a hard enough time staying on track with moral ontology. To begin an in depth discourse on moral epistemology running simultaneously with the current discourse here and now would be too much for those wanting to participate in this thread and follow it to handle.

I think it might be too much for you to handle because, arguably, the greatest difficulties religious morality faces are epistemic. You claim that God wants us to do one thing, whereas someone else might claim that he wants us to do another. Yet neither of you are able to show that your instructions actually have their source in the divine.

To skip over the aforementioned problems associated with having evolved primate minds, let me say this:

Our concepts of morality are just that, concepts. I.e. ideas, thoughts, concepts and such things are neither concrete, material nor are they extended in space like our hands or feet or teeth are. So to compare them would be to make a category mistake.

But you compared them! You stated that morality evolved, just like our hands and feet and organs. As such, the category mistake would be yours, not mine. I'm simply following your original comparison and pointing out that doesn't work; that something being evolved does not necessarily make it illusory.

Again, I will let Ruse state his case:

You've posted Ruse's view three or four times now. I don't see why. We aren't all committed to Ruse's view on the matter. Why not post an atheist who disagrees with him?

We can talk about them all you want in another thread. I may even extend the invitation to debate you on a pertinent topic.

Several months ago we had at least three separate threads on the moral argument. I don't see the need to return to that again.

 

[Ken-1122]

By making such a definite statemnet like I'm wrong is saying that you believe you know the truth in this matter and I am wrong. That in itself is pointing to an objective truth.

To claim I BELIEVE I know the truth is pointing to a subjective truth

yes that is what subjectivist say. But I believe it does have an objective root. How does anyone then know who is right about anything. If there is such a thing as truth then why cant there be a truth for morals. If this is the case there can only be one truth and not many.

But doesn't it make sense to have a truth about morality. Because we are having so many problems it makes sense that there is one set of morals out there which can then unite us and make it clear about what is right and wrong. Otherwise we are always undermining each other. The very nature of subjectivity promotes defiance and challenges to anything that is instilled as being right or good.

In order for morality to be considered "objective" you must be able to demonstrate it. Example; we both agree that murder it wrong; but you can't call it objective wrong; because it can't be demonstrated as wrong. If it were objective wrong, it would apply to animals, insects and all creatures; not just humans. Exterminating a million Cockroaches is considered a good thing; exterminating a million humans is considered genoside. Do you get my point?

No God made it clear about who is the spokes person for Him and that was Jesus Christ. He is the only one worthy and above reproach.

Jesus depended on other people to speak for him as well! As you know; Jesus never wrote anything down. Jesus preached for a few years or so then many years after he died various people (adding denying, compromising the truth) began to write and claim he said and did this or that; then a thousand years later a bunch of other men (adding, denying, compromising the truth) decided which of these writings are credible and which ones are not. As I said before, God doesn't speak for himself; he let's other men do it, and you tend to assume when other men speak for God they add, deny, and compromise the truth! I'm a little surprised you believe this stuff?

The moral code that was written from Jesus in the beginning is the same today. If you look at what Jesus said there is not ambiguity. If you are talking about some of the ways in which religion has allowed some things into the church then that is not what Christ taught.

And how do you know what Jesus actually taught? The only thing you know is what a bunch of men claimed he taught. How do you know these men were not adding, denying, and compromising the truth?

Look at this statement closely:

There IS no objective truth about right and wrong; .....

You say there is no objective truth about right and wrong. But is that true?

Yes! Truth is not objective; it's subjective.

Is it true that there is no truth about right and wrong?

There is no objective truth.

This is what is referred to as a self-refuting statement.

How is it self refuting?

ken


Ken

 

[Deidre32]

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...

There's only subjective morality. But, having said that, there are things we can agree upon that are bad for society as a whole...this is how laws are made.

I'm not sure there can ever be such a thing as objective morality, because where would the objectivity come from, to begin with?