Where does morality come from?

[VirOptimus]

That is not the point. You brought into the argument about the status of God regarding morality. By doing that you accepted the scenario that God was real for the sake of that argument. You can't have your cake and eat it too by making claims about God's status and then change the goalposts halfway through and appeal that there is no evidence for God. The logic was valid because we both accepted that when we began to debate God's moral status.

I didnt accept anything, I’m trying to understand your argument but its lacking.

 

[stevevw]

I didnt accept anything, I’m trying to understand your argument but its lacking.

We were debating God's moral status. When you bought into the argument and made comments like
VirOptimus said
Then good/evil is external to god?
Can god change morals, yes/no?
He cannot change morality?
Was god good when he/she/it asked for human sacrifice?

You were happy enough to accept and debate God's status for this particular argument. You don't ask questions about God and make comments about God's status unless you are happy to debate God's status. My logical argument was about God's status and that's what we were debating about.

You were happy enough to debate like God existed until things got a bit hard and you changed the goalposts by saying my logical argument doesn't count because God doesn't exist. But our argument wasn't about God's existence. It was about God's moral status which you accepted as the parameter for our debate by the comments and questions you asked and the way you participated in the debate..

 

[Speedwell]

We were debating God's moral status. When you bought into the argument and made comments like
VirOptimus said
Then good/evil is external to god?
Can god change morals, yes/no?
He cannot change morality?
Was god good when he/she/it asked for human sacrifice?

You were happy enough to accept and debate God's status for this particular argument. You don't ask questions about God and make comments about God's status unless you are happy to debate God's status. My logical argument was about God's status and that's what we were debating about.

You were happy enough to debate like God existed until things got a bit hard and you changed the goalposts by saying my logical argument doesn't count because God doesn't exist. But our argument wasn't about God's existence. It was about God's moral status which you accepted as the parameter for our debate by the comments and questions you asked and the way you participated in the debate..

Obviously you accept the proposition that if morals are objective then God exists, right? I mean, you are offering it as a proof for the existence of God, so it's reasonable to assume that you do.

So, do you also accept the inverse of that proposition, that if morals are not objective then God does not exist?

 

[stevevw]

Obviously you accept the proposition that if morals are objective then God exists, right? I mean, you are offering it as a proof for the existence of God, so it's reasonable to assume that you do.

So, do you also accept the inverse of that proposition, that if morals are not objective then God does not exist?

I wasn't focusing attention on proving the Christian God. I said that it didn't matter which transcendent being is responsible for objective morality. My main focus was on showing that there is objective morality.

The moral argument for God is as follows
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
From which it follows logically:
3. Therefore, God exists.

So I guess it would also follow that if objective morals don't exist then God does not exist. But I am sure there would be someone who would come up with some version of a transcendent being that was based only on subjective morality. People also have arguments for objective morality that don't use God but natural laws or human wellbeing.

 

[Speedwell]

I wasn't focusing attention on proving the Christian God. I said that it didn't matter which transcendent being is responsible for objective morality. My main focus was on showing that there is objective morality.

The moral argument for God is as follows
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
From which it follows logically:
3. Therefore, God exists.

So I guess it would also follow that if objective morals don't exist then God does not exist.

It doesn't follow logically, which is why I asked the question.

 

[stevevw]

It doesn't follow logically, which is why I asked the question.

What do you mean?

 

[Speedwell]

What do you mean?

Just what I said.
In logic, the truth of the conditional "If A then B" does not imply the truth of the inverse "If not A then not B." In the present case, the truth of the conditiional "If morals are objective then God exists" does not imply the truth of the inverse "If morals are not objective then God does not exist." The truth values of the two conditionals are not related, which is why I asked the question.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I wasn't focusing attention on proving the Christian God. I said that it didn't matter which transcendent being is responsible for objective morality. My main focus was on showing that there is objective morality.

The moral argument for God is as follows
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
From which it follows logically:
3. Therefore, a god exists.

So I guess it would also follow that if objective morals don't exist then God does not exist. But I am sure there would be someone who would come up with some version of a transcendent being that was based only on subjective morality. People also have arguments for objective morality that don't use God but natural laws or human wellbeing.

Should be re-written thusly:

1. If Objective Morality exists, then a god must exist.
2. Objective Morality exists.
3. Therfore, God exists

This would be a valid syllogism.

For it to be sound, you'd have demonstrate 2. Then, if you succeeded, you have to show that a god necessarily follows from that.

You've not shown either 2 or 1.

But, the good news is that you are also wrong that a lack of objective morality implies that a god doesn't exist.

This is a failure of the sort:

1. If it is Tuesday, Joe's tie is green
2. Joe's tie is green
3. Therefore, it is Tuesday

The second syllogism's conclusion is wrong since the premises says nothing about the requirements for a green tie; they specify requirements for Tuesday.

The first syllogism says nothing about conditions for a god's existence; it speaks only of the conditions for objective morality.

*Edited for consistency and clarity

 

[stevevw]

Just what I said.
In logic, the truth of the conditional "If A then B" does not imply the truth of the inverse "If not A then not B." In the present case, the truth of the conditiional "If morals are objective then God exists" does not imply the truth of the inverse "If morals are not objective then God does not exist." The truth values of the two conditionals are not related, which is why I asked the question.

I get you, yes that is true.

 

[Speedwell]

I get you, yes that is true.

So what is your answer? Do you believe that if morality was not objective then God would not exist?

 

[Kylie]

What do you mean by support?

Something to show that your statements are more than just words but have some basis in reality.

That's the point most people agree that there are objective moral values. The support is the fact that most people believe and live like objective morals are real. It is the same as most people believe and lives like the physical world is real. It is assessing and measuring the lived experience that is the evidence.

So what? You can say that people have the belief that morals are objective all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that people's beliefs are subjective things and thus can't be used to show that something is objective. You're doing nothing more than invoking a popularity contest.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because of your questions, you ask if you are wrong and I explain why thats a silly question.

So how does the fact that no thing has inherent value come into play with the difference between moral subjectivity and value nihilism? As the subjectivist, my position is that all the judgements people make, as you call 'em "value judgements" are simply people expressing their preferences, likes and dislikes. If I thought some things had inherent values I think I would have to be an objectivist.

So far, I think our only difference is how much more narrowly you define "exist", but I don't see that as a problem for subjective morality. So what do you see wrong about subjective morality that you reject it?

 

[VirOptimus]

So how does the fact that no thing has inherent value come into play with the difference between moral subjectivity and value nihilism? As the subjectivist, my position is that all the judgements people make, as you call 'em "value judgements" are simply people expressing their preferences, likes and dislikes. If I thought some things had inherent values I think I would have to be an objectivist.

So far, I think our only difference is how much more narrowly you define "exist", but I don't see that as a problem for subjective morality. So what do you see wrong about subjective morality that you reject it?

I dont belive subjective/objective are an meaningful distinction as objective presupposes an objective agent, i.e. an god.

 

[Moral Orel]

I dont belive subjective/objective are an meaningful distinction as objective presupposes an objective agent, i.e. an god.

Sounds like a non-sequitur. I just described subjective morality, is there something there that you disagree with? Is that not distinctly different from the way that objective morality is generally described?

 

[VirOptimus]

Sounds like a non-sequitur. I just described subjective morality, is there something there that you disagree with? Is that not distinctly different from the way that objective morality is generally described?

As I dont think ”subjective” is an meaningful term your question is meaningless.

 

[Moral Orel]

As I dont think ”subjective” is an meaningful term your question is meaningless.

Uhh... I just gave you the meaning. Is there something inaccurate with what I described?

 

[VirOptimus]

Uhh... I just gave you the meaning. Is there something inaccurate with what I described?

I have already answered.

 

[stevevw]

So what is your answer? Do you believe that if morality was not objective then God would not exist?

I think that would have to be the case. As objective morals and duties require a grounding outside humans. There would have to be some transcendent being that was naturally all good somewhere. That would also mean there were no real right and wrong if there was no independent grounding for morality. That doesn't mean people could come up with ways of making some meaning of different types of behavior being as you say likable and non-likable. But this would not equate to something being really right or wrong morally.

 

[stevevw]

Something to show that your statements are more than just words but have some basis in reality.

What do you mean by some basis in reality. You do know that when it comes to morality we are talking about metaphysics presuppositions which are logically argued. Did you go into the articles I linked and read the logical arguments for objective morality?

Or the logical argument I posted earlier based on our lived moral experience. The only way this can be equated to reality is that people live like there are objective morals in real-life situations. The logical arguments stand up and you have to show me how they don't IE come up with a defeater.

The problem is people erroneously assert that because morality is a fact in the philosophical sense it is automatically a fact in the scientific sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJSLvTN7pys&pbjreload=10

The skeptic has to mount an argument, not just assume the moral realist must bear the burden of proof and lack any reason to hold to their position. Nor can they just assume their wider metaphysical belief (like materialism) is true and incompatible with moral realism, therefore moral realism cannot be true.

This is how many layman moral skeptics argue. They just assume moral realism is incompatible with their materialistic or similar beliefs therefore there cannot be objective moral facts. That is a form of assuming your conclusion and not making a case for an alternative to moral realism. Until the skeptics do, moral realism is intuitively true and the best explanation of the moral landscape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM

So what? You can say that people have the belief that morals are objective all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that people's beliefs are subjective things and thus can't be used to show that something is objective. You're doing nothing more than invoking a popularity contest.

It is more than just a belief but also how people live this way. It is the support of our lived moral experience that justified our belief in objective morality. As I said before it is the same for our belief that the physical world is real and not some virtual reality based on our lived experience of it. We are justified in that belief until some defeater comes along to show it is unreal. That is how logical arguments are proposed to support a position.

 

[Moral Orel]

I have already answered.

Nah, that was a dodge.