Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2014, 10:13 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 09:58 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  Something is morally good because God says it is. God says something is morally good because God is omnibenevolent. God cannot say that something evil is morally good because it would go against His very nature, which is that of omnibenevolence.

now. Define "morally good". Then provide evidence that this god you speak of is omnibenevolent
Quote:If God does not exist and it is only the universe, or multiverse depending on your view, exists, then there really is not objective standard or foundation for objectivity, and so all that would be left is subjectivity.
wrong.
The objective standard is the level of harm an action poses against individuals and the society.
If there isnt a god to say x is good or bad,action x can still be considered good or bad based on the level of harm.
Quote: Morals, and everything else, would be subject to any agents experience.

So, were I raised in the Aztec culture, and God did not exist, then it would have been good for me to kill others and offer them up as sacrifices to the god of the sun.
it would still be wrong if you used the amount of harm it caused on people and the society as an objective standard.
Quote:

If no God or god exists and no thing exists, and all there is is nothingness, then nothingness is all there would be and no morals would be there, because nothingness is just that.
Morality is something, and so coudln't be part of nothing.
if no thing existed,we wouldn't be chatting here because we are things as well Drinking Beverage
Quote:By oppsing factors, not forces, I suppose I was thinking of natural factors such as human experience, location, religion and such... I hope I answered everything sufficiently, if not let me know!
meh

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:16 PM
RE: Objective Morality
TTC,you have answered posts that were posted after mine. I want an answer

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:17 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:06 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 08:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We know from Anthropology 101 where human customs come from, and in general why they arise. One of the fallacies religionists claim is that without their deity, morality would not exist. The fact is that EVERY SINGLE commandment, injunction and law in the Babble existed already in ancient Near Eastern culture, and was imported into the Babble. Religion TOOK their laws from existing culture. Religion GAVE nothing to culture.

Secondly, religionists cannot answer Euthyphro's Dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
The question raises many questions, including the nature and origins of Reality. Even IF something is "good" because the deity is the origin of "the good",
that means as long as the deity existed, "evil", (or the opposite of "the good") existed also. Is the deity the origin of evil ?
If not where, (before it created humans), did evil come from ? It HAD to exist already, if the "good" is from the deity.

Firstly, I didn't say that religion or the Bible was the source of objective morality. I said that there must be a God for there to be objective morality. No God means no objective morality. And I haven't seen the evidence for every single command in the Bible being taken form other cultures. But even if that is true, which I am not claiming, wouldn't it be plausible that any God that exists would have existed there too? As far as the dilemma goes I haven't read it all the way through, more of a skim over. I will read it when I get the time and I will see what you are talking about there. I think that evil isn't possible unless one has free will. I'm sure you've heard the free-will defense, that evil is always a possiblity where choice is a choice.. lol If we have the option to choose good, then there must be another choice, right? I don't exactly know of the origin of evil, all I know is that evil is existent because of free will. Now, God would obviously have free will, and so I don't know if that means that God cannot exist without evil in existence.. That's a topic I don't know much of and hadn't really thought about until you brought it up... So thanks! You've given me much to think about!

Science has debunked "free will". (Science has proven that humans make decisions before they are conscious of them. How is THAT "free" if you are not even aware of what you're choosing ? You in no way are "free" to chose "anything". Your choices are totally constrained by your learning, your circumstances, and your past.
Are you "free" to fly like a bird ? Are you "free" to do snowboard aerials ?

Is your god "good" ? How can a god be "good" if "good" is not "defined" (yet) or exist yet. Did god become "good" when man became "evil" ? If a god IS "good" (and the word has any meaning) what does it mean, if evil doesn't exist yet ? Your god is "eternal", isn't she ?

Please define a "god". What does that word mean ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-03-2014, 10:18 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 09:36 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  Ok,i'm back.
Your writing style is ok,and certainly better than mine,although i do think the last piece is copypasta.

Now why i don't think objective morality comes from god:

say god was the authority on morality. If (s)he decided one day that rape is moral,would rape become moral? I don't think so. Rape would still have all those negative effects on the victim,and therefore still be immoral. If god said killing your teenage kid if he misbehaves and is acting stubborn is moral from now on,will that mean it is moral now?

Also,if god is the moral standard,is his standard objectively moral?
According to god's moral standard,it is ok to kill homosexuals. While i believe it is not.


Also,i think wether something moral depends on the situation.
Say for example,killing a human is immoral.
Is it immoral to kill someone who is attempting massmurder?



And now this.
You wrote
1.if god does not exist,objective moral standards and duties do not exist.
2.objective moral standards do exists.
3.therefore god exists


show why you believe premise 1 and 2 are true.


Then,you start with more BS.
The theory of evolution does not say anything against or for the existence of a supreme being who is an authority on morality.

Also,evolution IS the thing that caused moral values.
The chance of survival is higher if we work together as a group,and if we harmed members of our group randomly,we would cause our own extinction. In order to succesfully work together,we must've developed a sense of empathy,wich i believe to be the basis of morality.
This empathy can be seen in all social species on the planet. Bobobos and shimps for example have shown remarkable sense of fairness and stuff.
Also,the pic at the bottom is a rather misleading depiction of evolution.

Now i need some coffee

No lol, I explained in another response that the nature of God is that He is omnibenevolent. He could not say "rape is good now" because it would go against His very nature. Just because a God would be all-powerful does not mean that He can do things that are logically impossible like that. And no, it's not okay to kill homosexuals and I'm not even sure if that's in the Bible? And yes, God's standard would be objectively moral if indeed He does exist, because nothing about an objective being could be subjective. If it can be that way then I don't see how... Anyway, murder is immoral. Killing someone to save a life is not immoral. I believe that presmie 1 is true because without an eternal, objective, rational being, then there would be no good foundation for objective moral values and duties. I believe premise 2 is true because of things like this: murder is wrong, period. hatred is wrong, period. There is no instance in which taking innocent life is right, and no instance in which hating another is right. Those are just two examples. Even Sam Harris admits the objectivity of morality, though he has different reasons for it. Forgive me on the evolution part. I didn't know much of evolution at the time and I was merely trying to add weight to my argument.. Total honesty here Smile If it's wrong then I apologize! I didn't copy but I did read a few articles and take from those articles what I thought were key points. Again, the last part I can correct in the future if need be...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:19 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 09:36 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 09:34 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  Yeah, I don't believe it is a real thing if there is no God or some sort of eternally existent being. I'm not necessarily speaking of the Christian God here. Just that for there to be objective moral values and duties, there must be an objective, eternally existent being.

Hmm well I don't believe in any god or objective morality, but I think I get what you're saying mostly Smile

Well cool Smile I respect that
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:20 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 09:44 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 09:38 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  That is not a very good argument. It seems that you must prove that there is no God or god or gods or any sort of eternally existing, objective and rational being before being able to make such a claim as the one that you have made. The argument begs the question... Now as far as the subjective morality part, I concede that subjective morals could exist without God, but that wouldn't really mean anything, because then right and wrong would only be based on experience and say, rape and murder, wouldn't really be wrong.
i think morality is based on the amount of harm and suffering an action causes to an individual and the society.
Rape and murder both cause much harm and suffering to the individual and the society,therefore it is REALLY wrong.
This harm and suffering can be shown,whereas your "authority on morality" cannot be shown.

Well there are a ton of argments for the existence of God, but that isn't the purpose of the article that I wrote, it was simply to make the case that I don't think there can be objective morality without God or god or gods or whatever...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:21 PM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2014 10:25 PM by Charis.)
RE: Objective Morality
Laugh out load Well, I think they kinda beat me to it! I'll refrain from asking for now, since you're already being kept pretty busy at the moment. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Charis's post
28-03-2014, 10:21 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:18 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  ... Even Sam Harris admits the objectivity of morality, though he has different reasons for it.
...

Kinda.

'admits' is not really the right word. Instead he 'proposes' an axiology of 'well-being' by which we can make objective assessments.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
28-03-2014, 10:22 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 09:58 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 08:21 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  I have a question for the first paragraph.

Objective morality is a standard of right and wrong that is unchanging. This standard exists and persists throughout time regardless of outside or opposing factors such as culture or religion. The “what” of this question is actually quite easy to answer and so the more difficult question becomes the most important and it is this: Is objective morality a reality?

On "objective morality" as you define it as existing outside of "opposing factors". For the moment I'm going to accept this definition, because I'm not too concerned with it.

But using this definition of "objective morality", and even hypothetically accepting the existence of the "god" concept, let me ask you to consider this.

What if a "god" did exist, (whatever that would even mean for "god" to exist) but this "god" thing never decided to "create" anything. No people, no animals, no earth, no universe, no matter, no energy...nothing. Just a detached cluster of thoughts that has no reality, which is near as I can figure the "god" concept to be.

But the point is, there is only this "god" thing, and nothing else. What would "objective morality" mean outside of creatures to comprehend it, or more to the point, for them to be able to do it to be able to preform "morality" and/or "immorality"?

In a world/universe devoid of such creatures, in this case, humans, or even any life for that matter, what could "objective morality" even mean? In a world/universe in which even the concept of life or humans is never even conceived of, let alone made reality, then what could it, "objective morality", mean in a non-existence voidful universe?

It seems to me, that even for "objective morality" to be a real thing, (which we aren't even to that point of acceptance of this concept yet) it would remain contingent on the existence of, us, to make it "flesh".

It does not seem to be possible to exist outside of us, even if we assume the premise that it exist. We need to exist in order for morality to exist, it would seem.

Take it one step further, and remove not only all things, matter, the universe, and so on. But also remove the "god" concept. There is truly nothingness, (whatever that could even mean) so what, in this nothingness, would morality mean without something for which morality to mean anything in application to, for it to act on?

"Objective morality" does not seem possible of existing, independently, as a condition of reality or the universe (or whatever this force is supposed to be) outside of...something. There for it cannot be regardless or opposing forces, and thereby cannot be existent based on your definition used.


Your thoughts?

Good! Thanks you for bringing this up. I mentioned in the article that without God, and not necessarily the Christian God, that there would be not objective morality. I think that morality is a character trait of God. Something is morally good because God says it is. God says something is morally good because God is omnibenevolent. God cannot say that something evil is morally good because it would go against His very nature, which is that of omnibenevolence.

If God does not exist and it is only the universe, or multiverse depending on your view, exists, then there really is not objective standard or foundation for objectivity, and so all that would be left is subjectivity. Morals, and everything else, would be subject to any agents experience. So, were I raised in the Aztec culture, and God did not exist, then it would have been good for me to kill others and offer them up as sacrifices to the god of the sun.

If no God or god exists and no thing exists, and all there is is nothingness, then nothingness is all there would be and no morals would be there, because nothingness is just that. Morality is something, and so coudln't be part of nothing.

By oppsing factors, not forces, I suppose I was thinking of natural factors such as human experience, location, religion and such... I hope I answered everything sufficiently, if not let me know!
Okay, I was also going to respond to this second part your wrote...This second part...
(28-03-2014 09:38 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  Now as far as the subjective morality part, I concede that subjective morals could exist without God, but that wouldn't really mean anything, because then right and wrong would only be based on experience and say, rape and murder, wouldn't really be wrong.
but I'd do it here with this reply as well.


I'm going to highlight some things you wrote.

"without God,..., that there would be not objective morality."
"I think that morality is a character trait of God."

What the fuck are you basing this on?! Prove this first.
"Something is morally good because God says it is."
What the fuck are you basing this on?! Prove this first.
"God says something is morally good because God is omnibenevolent." What the fuck are you basing this on?! Prove this first.
"God cannot say that something evil is morally good because it would go against His very nature, which is that of omnibenevolence."
What on earth are you basing this on? You cannot simply assert things with such profound indications without giving reasons for them. Nothing else you have to say matters, unless you can support these claims with anything.

I began responding to more of your post, but honestly, until you can address this, the rest does not matter. Your assertion of "objective morality" existing, and using it as proof of "god" doesn't hold if the presupposition that your "god" concept exist in order to explain your "objective morality" concept.

As you did go on to say, perhaps "objective morality" could not exist without your "god" concept. I agree. There is no "god" and there is no "objective morality", other than what we make of it based on your social biology.



But, do consider, as I said there would need to be something for the concept of morality to exist. A thinking being. You feel that needs to be your "god" concept, and that that is the be all and end all of morality. But again...why? Prove it....

My point only shows that the concept of "morality" can only exist if there are things, intelligence beings, to give it "flesh". You jump past humans as the source of morality, and through it to an unrealized, unproven being. There is no reason to do this, when we can already demonstrate it through humans, and other animals, without the need to appeal to your "god" concept.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:26 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 09:48 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Ah objective morality. It's a myth as all morality is subjective and a product of evolution (game theory and empathy being Evolutionarily Stable Strategies). If morality was objective there would never be a debate about things such as the death penalty or abortion. However this is not the case, and never has been. To answer this I will ask you 1 question and if you answer it truthfully you will see that God is not the basis for morality (subjective or objective) "If god told you to murder your wife would you do it?"

No. I like that you tried though. I've explained twice though now that God's very nature is that of omnibenevolence and so He couldn't deem it okay to take innocent life ever, it's logically impossible. God can't say "murder is good so kill your wife" because it is objectively not good and it can't be any other way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: