Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2016, 07:05 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 07:14 AM by jason_delisle.)
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 05:58 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Are you familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma?

Quote:Like trying to define what a good rock is.


The link did not work for me. No problem though. I am very familiar with Euthypro's delemma. It was Plato's famous question concerning the nature of goodness asks whether a thing is good because God says it is good, or does God say it's good because it is good.

If a thing is good simply because God says it is, then it seems that God could say anything was good and it would be. This might include things that we instinctively know to be evil, like rape or murder. But we don't want a morality based on God's arbitrary declarations, so it seems this choice is a poor one for the believer. However, if God is simply reporting a thing's goodness, then He is no longer the standard for goodness and seems to be at the mercy of some outside standard. But we don't want there to be a standard above God that He must bow to, so this response does not seem attractive, either. Hence the dilemma.

I will attempt to give you my answer to the delemma but i must first make myself clear on one thing. According to the moral argument, the premises are:

1. If God does not exist, objective (or absolute ) morality does not exist.
2. Objective morality does exist.
3. Thus, God exists.

In my opinion, I believe that the first premise is true and I hope a gave an adequate job explaining why. However I don't think the second premise is so easy to prove and I am not going to attempt it at this moment. If the first premise is true, it would give an atheist 2 options:

1. Believe that God does not exist. Thus, objective morality cannot exist.

2. Believe that objective morality can exist without God.

Now...this is just my thoughts and it goes back to created purpose. Let's look at the knife and rock examples that I provided earlier.

Here is why i cant accept option 2 for premise two. If God does not exist, we are technically no different from a rock being that we were the product of nature by natural means with no created prupose. All religion (and everyone else) has a different opinion on what the purpose of this rock is. Christians may say the rock is a paperweight. Muslims may call it an arrowhead. Buddhist may call it a hammer. An atheist may say it is a brick to build a house. Either way you look at the rock, it is subjective standard.

However, hypothetically if God does exist, one of these religions (or none of them) are right. In this case, we are not like rock. We are like a knife. We were created by an intelligent being for an intended purpose. So what ever goes against our created purpose is objectively wrong. It would be like saying a can opener is wrong because it should drive nails or make coffee.

How does all this apply to the delemma? Well....hypothetically, if God does exist. He was never created for a purpose. He has no equal and no authority above him. Since he has some level of intelligence, he can give a purpose onto himself. But whatever purpose he gives himself would be objectively good by default. This would make God "the supreme good" because he would be the sole standard of goodness. Thus whatever purpose that He bestows onto is creation is objectively good by default. God, as creator, is the determiner of all purposes of His creation and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad. Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be. Murder is evil because it is not the purpose of humans to arbitrarily decide when people should die. (Note that this does not necessarily vilify all human-caused deaths, such as capital punishment or war. If God has stated guidelines for these actions, then it is no longer arbitrary human will being carried out.)

In conclusion, a thing is good to the degree that it fulfills its purposes. Because God is the creator of all things, according to His own good nature, He is therefore both the standard and declarer of goodness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 07:05 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
Do not kill a healthy newborn baby. Anyone disagree?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Wanderer's post
22-03-2016, 07:16 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 07:05 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  Do not kill a healthy newborn baby. Anyone disagree?
Are you trying to prove premise 2 of the moral arguement to be true?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 07:34 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
Quote:1. If God does not exist, objective (or absolute ) morality does not exist.

In my opinion, I believe that the first premise is true and I hope a gave an adequate job explaining why

No, its false.

If god exists, then you still have subjective morals, all his morals are subjective from his view.
To confirm my claim please ask Satan, he will give you different morals from his view.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 07:36 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
i was just stating something that i think is absolutely immoral, and can't think of any reason why anybody would think it would be moral.. i haven't actually had time to read this thread, and have no idea what you're talking about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Wanderer's post
22-03-2016, 08:01 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 07:34 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
Quote:1. If God does not exist, objective (or absolute ) morality does not exist.

In my opinion, I believe that the first premise is true and I hope a gave an adequate job explaining why

No, its false.

If god exists, then you still have subjective morals, all his morals are subjective from his view.
To confirm my claim please ask Satan, he will give you different morals from his view.
Please reread my post regarding the painbot example. If a painbot were to say to its creator, "you are unfair! It is wrong for you to make us suffer!", it still would not change the fact that the purpose for their existence was to suffer. The painbot would be objectively wrong because the fact still remains. Their purpose for their existence was to suffer. Thus, the definition of a good painbot remains as one who suffers greatly. This example is an analogy to describe the relationship of a God and His creation. God is the creator and we are the painbots. (Ironic that I am comparing God to a psychopath inventor..but eh)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 08:02 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 07:36 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  i was just stating something that i think is absolutely immoral, and can't think of any reason why anybody would think it would be moral.. i haven't actually had time to read this thread, and have no idea what you're talking about.
Ok brah...no problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 08:07 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 07:05 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 05:58 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Are you familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma?


The link did not work for me. No problem though. I am very familiar with Euthypro's delemma. It was Plato's famous question concerning the nature of goodness asks whether a thing is good because God says it is good, or does God say it's good because it is good.

If a thing is good simply because God says it is, then it seems that God could say anything was good and it would be. This might include things that we instinctively know to be evil, like rape or murder. But we don't want a morality based on God's arbitrary declarations, so it seems this choice is a poor one for the believer. However, if God is simply reporting a thing's goodness, then He is no longer the standard for goodness and seems to be at the mercy of some outside standard. But we don't want there to be a standard above God that He must bow to, so this response does not seem attractive, either. Hence the dilemma.

I will attempt to give you my answer to the delemma but i must first make myself clear on one thing. According to the moral argument, the premises are:

1. If God does not exist, objective (or absolute ) morality does not exist.
2. Objective morality does exist.
3. Thus, God exists.

In my opinion, I believe that the first premise is true and I hope a gave an adequate job explaining why. However I don't think the second premise is so easy to prove and I am not going to attempt it at this moment. If the first premise is true, it would give an atheist 2 options:

1. Believe that God does not exist. Thus, objective morality cannot exist.

2. Believe that objective morality can exist without God.

Now...this is just my thoughts and it goes back to created purpose. Let's look at the knife and rock examples that I provided earlier.

Here is why i cant accept option 2 for premise two. If God does not exist, we are technically no different from a rock being that we were the product of nature by natural means with no created prupose. All religion (and everyone else) has a different opinion on what the purpose of this rock is. Christians may say the rock is a paperweight. Muslims may call it an arrowhead. Buddhist may call it a hammer. An atheist may say it is a brick to build a house. Either way you look at the rock, it is subjective standard.

However, hypothetically if God does exist, one of these religions (or none of them) are right. In this case, we are not like rock. We are like a knife. We were created by an intelligent being for an intended purpose. So what ever goes against our created purpose is objectively wrong. It would be like saying a can opener is wrong because it should drive nails or make coffee.

How does all this apply to the delemma? Well....hypothetically, if God does exist. He was never created for a purpose. He has no equal and no authority above him. Since he has some level of intelligence, he can give a purpose onto himself. But whatever purpose he gives himself would be objectively good by default. This would make God "the supreme good" because he would be the sole standard of goodness. Thus whatever purpose that He bestows onto is creation is objectively good by default. God, as creator, is the determiner of all purposes of His creation and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad. Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be. Murder is evil because it is not the purpose of humans to arbitrarily decide when people should die. (Note that this does not necessarily vilify all human-caused deaths, such as capital punishment or war. If God has stated guidelines for these actions, then it is no longer arbitrary human will being carried out.)

In conclusion, a thing is good to the degree that it fulfills its purposes. Because God is the creator of all things, according to His own good nature, He is therefore both the standard and declarer of goodness.

I don't see anywhere where you might of given an adequate job explaining why you think that 1st premise is true. Was it some other thread? all I see is one post in #51 where you go onto stating things but you don't actually focus on that 1st premise itself. So I don't know where you did.

I don't see any moment at all that refutes how something NOT GOD could be the source of objective morality existing. A cosmic force, karma, some layered order with no consciousness but permeates the universe in layers, etc. Where are the arguments to showcase them because otherwise there wasn't even a point made against that idea.

If goes does not exist objective morality can't exist isn't a premise or position based on either god or naturalism. That's the only argument you made but it's really a premise built on God vs ANY other possible concept. And there are millions of people who believe concepts that aren't naturalism or God.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 08:11 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 07:05 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  Do not kill a healthy newborn baby. Anyone disagree?

I do. It is not a true dictum in every circumstance.

If killing the child saves the lives of dozens of other people, then kill the child.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 08:13 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
Would anyone disagree that showing and receiving love is objectively good?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: