What is morality?

[glo]

God can throw definitions at whatever he chooses. That doesn't cause you to accept His definitions. You have to independently affirm that, yes, God's definitions are correct, therefore I should adopt them. But you can't do that from within God's definitional system.

correct? what do you mean by correct? correct as to what? How do you say something is correct unless you have the correct answers? like you can't say one plus two is not five but three, only if you knew the answer was three, then you could say it was wrong. but where is your answer book that lays out what are really the true definitions of 'good' or 'bad'?

and if you can't do whatever it is from within God's definitional system, what can you do it within?

blame my young mind, but i can't seem to take your meaning.

 

[Philosoft]

correct? what do you mean by correct? correct as to what? How do you say something is correct unless you have the correct answers? like you can't say one plus two is not five but three, only if you knew the answer was three, then you could say it was wrong. but where is your answer book that lays out what are really the true definitions of 'good' or 'bad'?

and if you can't do whatever it is from within God's definitional system, what can you do it within?

blame my young mind, but i can't seem to take your meaning.

Actually, little one, you are ever so close to understanding. Sleep on it, see if you have any minor epiphanies by morning.

 

[HadouKen24]

Strange. The consensus on this thread seems to be that morality is a personal thing, that there is no objective, universally correct standard. The main evidence for this -- there are others, I know -- seems to be that everyone has a somewhat different determination of morality.

That doesn't follow. Everyone seems to get a different picture of reality, too, but that doesn't mean that there is no true reality. Witnesses to a crime often have conflicting stories, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't one true way in which the crime was committed.

The fact that so many different "versions" of morality agree so well is evidence to me that we are all referring to some basic pattern. Furthermore, we find that we can discover this pattern through reason as well as through intuition.

We know that suffering is a bad thing. However we come to that conclusion, or whatever reasons we give for it, it is true. We also realize that others suffer. Now, if suffering is a bad thing, then the more of it there is, the worse, and the less, the better. So if we can alleviate great suffering of ten people by taking a little suffering on ourselves, then we know that it is the correct thing to do.

I know that this example is very simplified and probably has a few logical holes. But by reason we can determine that certain actions are necessarily to be considered better than others and to be encouraged, and others to be worse and discouraged. These standards are not merely whim or personal opinion.

 

[Blissman]

You still have a problem. The above is an incomplete moral system. You haven't accounted for the decision to accept God's laws in the first place. Posed as a question, you need to answer this: How do you know it is good/right/moral to adhere to God's definitions of "good" and "bad"?

A lack of a belief in morals by some person or God external to yourself fails as a moral system. If you chose your own set of rules for 'right' and 'wrong', in the first place you would be biased. Either a God (or some similar concept) or an authority whom can excercize power over your actions by some edict would have to exist. You can't be your own judge, because you will always be biased,
thinking yourself better than you are and thinking that you do no wrong.

If you 'elect yourself' to be the rule maker and judge, it would not be impossible for a Hitler, a Saddam, or someone similar to believe that what they were doing was good and not harm. They may 'yes man' themselve to commit any crime. Obviously, a person could also make choices which are 'good', and would fight a Saddam, because whatever criteria you use, 'wrong is wrong', and 'right is right'. You might also choose to have no standards.

Religion does not make a man moral because there are established sins which one is not suppose follow the teachings of the faith. How you act is (usually)
your willful choice. There is no such thing as "Because I am a Christian, I am a rightous man in all that I think and all that I do". A "God complex" is not exlusive to any one faith, any thiest, athiest, agnostic...

To anyone who does not believe a supreme being or a God, what is the source of standands by which to life? Whatever makes you feel happy at the time? Suppose murder made you feel happy? This is not to say that in reality people who do not believe in morals (which has to include punishment should you break them) WILL act imorally (not all drug pushers are Wiccan, nor are Drug Dealers Drug Dealers because of Wicca) - or pagans - or athiests - or Christian - or Jews - etc..

 

[glo]

forgive me philosoft, but some of us are "little one"s and have school to go to still, so I can't reply currently to that retort. but first to HadouKen24:

Strange. The consensus on this thread seems to be that morality is a personal thing, that there is no objective, universally correct standard. The main evidence for this -- there are others, I know -- seems to be that everyone has a somewhat different determination of morality.

that's because not all here share the same ideas and opinions. some are Christians who believe there is a God, which allows for us to believe an absolute right and wrong, whereas some are agnostics, atheists, etc. you know that already i suppose. but then again, we are currently (for lack of a better word) 'debating' how do we know God's definition of morality is correct, and then why to follow it.

The fact that so many different "versions" of morality agree so well is evidence to me that we are all referring to some basic pattern. Furthermore, we find that we can discover this pattern through reason as well as through intuition. We know that suffering is a bad thing. However we come to that conclusion, or whatever reasons we give for it, it is true. We also realize that others suffer. Now, if suffering is a bad thing, then the more of it there is, the worse, and the less, the better. So if we can alleviate great suffering of ten people by taking a little suffering on ourselves, then we know that it is the correct thing to do.
I know that this example is very simplified and probably has a few logical holes. But by reason we can determine that certain actions are necessarily to be considered better than others and to be encouraged, and others to be worse and discouraged. These standards are not merely whim or personal opinion.

there's stuff from Mr. Lewis' Mere Christianity concerning that. there's a whole process to it, but i'll get back to this after around 4 pm.

 

[glo]

whoops. don't mind this post.

 

[WanderingMagi]

I've never found C.S. Lewis particularly compelling. He's too Platonic (his argument that to judge things unjust one must have some divinely inspired or platonic Idea of Justice - in other words, to judge something unjust there must really exist some ideal Justice [God, presumably, though I don't see why that follows necessarily from a merely formal epistemological requirement - this part of his argument is wildly overdetermined]. This is fine, I guess, but I don't see how he's able to constrain this 'theory of forms' to the identification of justice, rather than say, the identification of a pigeon. If I see a pigeon, how am I able to judge it a pigeon unless there's some Ideal Pigeon floating out there in the Platonic Heavens. His moral argument lacks the internal tools to contain itself within the moral sphere- the upshot is that it necessarily entails a Platonic theory of cognition, which is too big and awkward for me to swallow).

Surely I can identify a pigeon because it is a subset of bird because I have seen bird and pigeon=stupid grey bird with silly feet. Not very Platonic - but you can still, even operating with this sort of philosophy, apply Lewis' argument to morality, because his point is that with absoluutely no standard whatsoever we have no way to even percieve morality, let alone understand it, if there is no God. He is saying that asking someone in a godless universe to establish whether an act is moral is like asking a blind man to identify a picture of a pigeon. He's not suggesting we percieve something is because it is like/contains the ideal, as a Platonist would (I think...). I am not sure I buy the argument, as evolutionary arguments might provide a reasonably compelling idea of the source of morality, but all the same, I am not sure this argument refutes it either.

WanderingMagi

 

[glo]

. God can throw definitions at whatever he chooses. That doesn't cause you to accept His definitions. You have to independently affirm that, yes, God's definitions are correct, therefore I should adopt them. But you can't do that from within God's definitional system.

God's definitions are correct because He is holy. He does everything for a purpose, everything happens for a purpose, so when he 'throws definitions at whatever he chooses,' He really has a reason in His will. God is uncomprehensible(sp?). He is beyond the perception of mankind. He is holy, meaning perfect, never making mistakes, never incorrect.
BUT WAIT.
if i get this straight, you feel like if God actually existed, you would still not obey Him unless you had reasons why to obey his definitions of morality?
So you would rather base all your actions on your own judgement than a person that is past astronomical figures in the relation to how much more superior He is to you (and the rest of all creation)? And that He gave his only begotten Son to save you and He loves you and you still will live by your own judgement than live by God's definitions and throw away heaven and dwell in hell because of that?


please clear this up.

 

[Philosoft]

A lack of a belief in morals by some person or God external to yourself fails as a moral system. If you chose your own set of rules for 'right' and 'wrong', in the first place you would be biased. Either a God (or some similar concept) or an authority whom can excercize power over your actions by some edict would have to exist. You can't be your own judge, because you will always be biased,
thinking yourself better than you are and thinking that you do no wrong.

If you 'elect yourself' to be the rule maker and judge, it would not be impossible for a Hitler, a Saddam, or someone similar to believe that what they were doing was good and not harm. They may 'yes man' themselve to commit any crime. Obviously, a person could also make choices which are 'good', and would fight a Saddam, because whatever criteria you use, 'wrong is wrong', and 'right is right'. You might also choose to have no standards.

Religion does not make a man moral because there are established sins which one is not suppose follow the teachings of the faith. How you act is (usually)
your willful choice. There is no such thing as "Because I am a Christian, I am a rightous man in all that I think and all that I do". A "God complex" is not exlusive to any one faith, any thiest, athiest, agnostic...

To anyone who does not believe a supreme being or a God, what is the source of standands by which to life? Whatever makes you feel happy at the time? Suppose murder made you feel happy? This is not to say that in reality people who do not believe in morals (which has to include punishment should you break them) WILL act imorally (not all drug pushers are Wiccan, nor are Drug Dealers Drug Dealers because of Wicca) - or pagans - or athiests - or Christian - or Jews - etc..

Understand: I'm not necessarily claiming one can independently derive a complete moral system (although I have my suspicions about the origins of religious morals). My point is we need a prior moral sense - a sense of what is right and wrong - in order to decide that we ought to follow some moral code or other. A moral sense does not necessarily entail the ability to freely construct an exhaustive moral code.

 

[Philosoft]

God's definitions are correct because He is holy.

Correctness does not automatically follow from holiness.

He does everything for a purpose, everything happens for a purpose, so when he 'throws definitions at whatever he chooses,' He really has a reason in His will. God is uncomprehensible(sp?). He is beyond the perception of mankind. He is holy, meaning perfect, never making mistakes, never incorrect.

That's fine. Now tell me by what standard you judge God's actions. How do you know God never makes mistakes unless you already know what a Godly mistake would look like in every conceivable situation?

BUT WAIT.
if i get this straight, you feel like if God actually existed, you would still not obey Him unless you had reasons why to obey his definitions of morality?

Very astute. Even you have prior reasons for choosing to follow God.

So you would rather base all your actions on your own judgement than a person that is past astronomical figures in the relation to how much more superior He is to you (and the rest of all creation)?

It doesn't matter what I would rather do. I have no choice - I can only accept a moral system I agree with.

And that He gave his only begotten Son to save you and He loves you and you still will live by your own judgement than live by God's definitions and throw away heaven and dwell in hell because of that?

Well, my definitions might agree entirely with God's definitions. But "because they're God's definitions" does not itself tell me how or why I should accept them. I would have to understand why it is good for me to listen to God.

 

[Outspoken]

Understand: I'm not necessarily claiming one can independently derive a complete moral system (although I have my suspicions about the origins of religious morals). My point is we need a prior moral sense - a sense of what is right and wrong - in order to decide that we ought to follow some moral code or other. A moral sense does not necessarily entail the ability to freely construct an exhaustive moral code.

If your "moral sence" is true, then you must completely submit to C.S. Lewis' moral law arugment and thus the exsistance of God is fully established.

 

[Philosoft]

If your "moral sence" is true, then you must completely submit to C.S. Lewis' moral law arugment and thus the exsistance of God is fully established.

No, Lewis' argument is not deductive. It merely contains one among countless prima facie plausible foundational arguments for a moral sense.

 

[Outspoken]

No, Lewis' argument is not deductive. It merely contains one among countless prima facie plausible foundational arguments for a moral sense.

No, for a moral sense implies a univeral law and that leads directly to theism. There is no other possiblity.

 

[Philosoft]

No, for a moral sense implies a univeral law and that leads directly to theism. There is no other possiblity.

Heh. You've done quite a hack job on the Transcendental Argument. If you have indeed excluded all other possibilities, you must have a deductive argument that proves a moral sense entails a "universal law." I would like to see that proof, if you don't mind.

 

[Lifesaver]

I'm not sure this is the proper topic, but I'm curious anyway:
How many atheists here consider themselves moral relativists?

 

[Philosoft]

Not me. I'm a moral intersubjectivist.

 

[Outspoken]

Heh. You've done quite a hack job on the Transcendental Argument. If you have indeed excluded all other possibilities, you must have a deductive argument that proves a moral sense entails a "universal law." I would like to see that proof, if you don't mind.

Well lets start in the beginning. Lewis did a good job for me, read it for yourself. If you think there are other possiblities, outline them and we can see if you're correct or not.

 

[Philosoft]

Well lets start in the beginning. Lewis did a good job for me, read it for yourself. If you think there are other possiblities, outline them and we can see if you're correct or not.

I'm familiar with Lewis' argument. He does a passable job of promoting God as a potential source of moral sense. He does a poor job of proving all other hypotheses inadequate.

A pantheon of gods, with one designated the moral-sense-giver, is consistent with the evidence. A naturally evolved moral sense is consistent with the evidence.

The TAG simply fails outright as a deductive argument.

 

[Outspoken]

I'm familiar with Lewis' argument. He does a passable job of promoting God as a potential source of moral sense. He does a poor job of proving all other hypotheses inadequate.

A pantheon of gods, with one designated the moral-sense-giver, is consistent with the evidence. A naturally evolved moral sense is consistent with the evidence.

The TAG simply fails outright as a deductive argument.

okay then if you say there is a pntheon, you must show there is more then one god, you cannot just jump to this conclusion on one and leave it open. I'll be waiting for you arugment proving each god in its entirely. Without it I will jump back to Lewis' arugment as correct. As for your loaded word choice, Lewis does an excellent job, not passable. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong Philosoft, but such is your posting style.

 

[Philosoft]

okay then if you say there is a pntheon, you must show there is more then one god, you cannot just jump to this conclusion on one and leave it open. I'll be waiting for you arugment proving each god in its entirely. Without it I will jump back to Lewis' arugment as correct.

Blech. Your disdain for even elementary logic is palpable. I reiterate, Lewis has not made an exclusive argument for Christianity. He merely asserts that God is a plausible basis for morality. He has not "proven" God exists.

My pantheon example has the same epistemic foundation as Lewis' - basically none. I am no more under obligation to "prove" other gods as Lewis' is to "prove" one.

As for your loaded word choice, Lewis does an excellent job, not passable.

Lewis was quite the wordsmith, I'll concede that. But, as his argument no more deduces the Christian God as the source of morality as the Easter Bunny, any claim of "excellence" is wishful thinking.

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong Philosoft, but such is your posting style.

Go ahead, show me where I said Lewis was "wrong." I neither said nor implied any such thing. Lewis has no monopoly on the truth, but his argument is also currently beyond disproof.