God and morality

[eatingcannibal]

Are actions designated ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ simply because they’re what God wants or doesn’t want? If so, then morality is objectively meaningless. If morality branches directly from God’s arbitrary whims, then questions of morality do not apply to God, and to be a “moral person” is only to subscribe to a celestial “Because I’m the dad and I said so!” doctrine; you’re simply doing as your told, rather than because there’s good reason for it. If, to the contrary, you believe God has actual, legitimate reasons for deciding what’s moral and immoral, then you’ve rendered God obsolete on such issues, as far as I can tell. Because, if God has actual reasons for assigning the moral demands that He has, then this necessarily implies that God, too, adheres to a code of moral conduct. And so, the choice is yours: (A) Morality does not exist, or (B) Morality is derived from a source other than God.

If I've missed option (C), please let me know

Have a great week, everybody.

 

[Storm]

ITA. Morality cannot be dependent upon whim.

I have a C, though it's rather weird: morality doesn't exist yet. That's what humans are for, to develop it.

 

[johnhanks]

Are actions designated ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ simply because they’re what God wants or doesn’t want? If so, then morality is objectively meaningless. If morality branches directly from God’s arbitrary whims, then questions of morality do not apply to God, and to be a “moral person” is only to subscribe to a celestial “Because I’m the dad and I said so!” doctrine; you’re simply doing as your told, rather than because there’s good reason for it. If, to the contrary, you believe God has actual, legitimate reasons for deciding what’s moral and immoral, then you’ve rendered God obsolete on such issues, as far as I can tell. Because, if God has actual reasons for assigning the moral demands that He has, then this necessarily implies that God, too, adheres to a code of moral conduct. And so, the choice is yours: (A) Morality does not exist, or (B) Morality is derived from a source other than God.

This is well-worn territory, I think, but I'll outline a scheme for your (B).

1. Humans evolved in tight-knit hunter-gatherer bands of closely related individuals.
2. The band's survival depended utterly on cooperation between members.
3. This need for cooperation created strong selective pressure for human brains to evolve innate senses of obligation and of guilt when obligations were not met.
4. As cultures developed they codified these intra-group obligations into increasingly complex moral codes, often reinforced by ascribing the code's prescriptions and proscriptions to divine commandment.

 

[eatingcannibal]

This is well-worn territory, I think, but I'll outline a scheme for your (B).

1. Humans evolved in tight-knit hunter-gatherer bands of closely related individuals.
2. The band's survival depended utterly on cooperation between members.
3. This need for cooperation created strong selective pressure for human brains to evolve innate senses of obligation and of guilt when obligations were not met.
4. As cultures developed they codified these intra-group obligations into increasingly complex moral codes, often reinforced by ascribing the code's prescriptions and proscriptions to divine commandment.

I agree with you exactly. What I need help with is assuming the theistic point of view, from which it's argued that humans wouldn't know how to conduct themselves if not for a supervising Checklister in the sky. Not only do I not agree with the theistic account for the the source of morality; I'm genuinely not able to understand where they're coming from. So, theists, very sincerely I'd appreciate any sort of answer on this: On what grounds is God necessary for morality?

 

[Morning Star Dhamma]

Are actions designated ...

Who is doing the "designating?"

... ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ ...

Who is defining these terms?

There's a practical consideration here: What conduct is most supportive of ending greed, hate and delusion? In other words, what action will be of greatest benefit to myself and others? Extended discussion about our opinions of the nature of God can sometimes distract from this consideration.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Option D, morality comes from God AND other sources
Option E Guppies rule the universe so who cares?

....

first one has to define what God is, before one can begin to answer the question.

As everything is God, to my mind, this means all morality comes from God, even the one that allows for the killing of kittens due to excessive masturbation.

This "God" morality however manifests amongst people in the form of social norms and is largely dependant upon homosapiens. As such then morality is subjective and largely dependant upon culture and context.

Then we have other ideas about duality etc etc etc

 

[fallingblood]

I agree with you exactly. What I need help with is assuming the theistic point of view, from which it's argued that humans wouldn't know how to conduct themselves if not for a supervising Checklister in the sky. Not only do I not agree with the theistic account for the the source of morality; I'm genuinely not able to understand where they're coming from. So, theists, very sincerely I'd appreciate any sort of answer on this: On what grounds is God necessary for morality?

I do not believe that it is accurate to state that without a God, humans would claim that they wouldn't know how to conduct themselves. That is somewhat misleading.

Instead, God is meant to be a law giver. However, if you were too look at the ten commandments, and then compare them with nearly any other form of ancient law (even modern laws), besides those focusing on God, you would see that there are nearly identical to many other laws that were developed independently. If we use the Christian religion for an example, it just happens that a supreme being stated these laws. However, if one were to really look at the Hebrews before the ten commandments, they still had the same laws. They just were not yet commanded.

What can be assumed then is that humans, without a god figure guiding them, came up with these laws. So people who believe in a God would still know how to conduct themselves. The opposite is never suggested accept by religious extremists, who a going against logic in the first place, and would be doing so no matter what their religious stance was.

As for your initial question, you are trying to put human confines on a non-human entity. It simply does not work. So there is an option C, that revolving around the idea that God is not bound by human understanding (theoretically, if a god did exist, this would be the most logical case). Even in religion though, laws come from man. They may be called inspired, but they are still human.

 

[eatingcannibal]

Who is doing the "designating?"

Who is defining these terms?

There's a practical consideration here: What conduct is most supportive of ending greed, hate and delusion? In other words, what action will be of greatest benefit to myself and others? Extended discussion about our opinions of the nature of God can sometimes distract from this consideration.

Any observing party is a candidate for the designating: a person that witnesses a murder, a mom that learns her child stole something; whomever. And I do maintain that 'moral' and 'immoral' here are interchangeable with 'good' and 'bad' or whatever words you prefer. I could make a lengthy effort to qualify what exactly 'moral' and 'immoral' mean to me, but any definition would of course be challengeable, and at any rate I don't think that exact definitions are necessary. Any loose interpretation of the words 'moral' and 'immoral,' or 'good' and 'bad' can serve the purpose of the question I've asked; people generally understand what is meant by those words.

In the latter part of your comment, after your requesting that I qualify terms I used, all you've essentially offered is your own interpretation of how morality is decided: "What conduct is most supportive of ending greed, hate and delusion? In other words, what action will be of greatest benefit to myself and others?" At no point did you actually attempt to answer what I've asked (which, again, I've asked to those that believe religion or the existence of God and morality cannot be pulled apart).

 

[MSizer]

...
What can be assumed then is that humans, without a god figure guiding them, came up with these laws. So people who believe in a God would still know how to conduct themselves. The opposite is never suggested accept by religious extremists, who a going against logic in the first place, and would be doing so no matter what their religious stance was...

I'm not so sure about that. A lot of Christians it seems to me believe that we are all born immoral by default and that only through the salvation of christ can we behave morally. I don't even understand what it's supposed to mean, but that's what they say. Even to your OP where you bring up the Euthyphro conundrum, they often say that it's not a connundrum at all, but that goodness is doing the will of God because God himself is goodness. I don't understand their claim there either. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[paradises]

moral values in islam:
According to value theories that are determined by religion, the source of all value judgments is god, whether they are fixed only by revelation or by means of intelligence. As much as Quranic verses describe what good and evil are, they are also judgments that establish values regarding things like right-wrong, halal-haram, beautiful-ugly.
who created man? who created the brain which can distinguish what is right and what is wrong? definitely god the creator of this universe

 

[eatingcannibal]

I'm not so sure about that. A lot of Christians it seems to me believe that we are all born immoral by default and that only through the salvation of christ can we behave morally.

EXACTLY along the lines of what I encounter. As a nonbeliever, very often I'm asked, "If you do not believe in God, from where comes your ability to distinguish from moral and immoral, right and wrong?"

 

[MSizer]

EXACTLY along the lines of what I encounter. As a nonbeliever, very often I'm asked, "If you do not believe in God, from where comes your ability to distinguish from moral and immoral, right and wrong?"

Yes, except they don't word it so specifically. What they usually ask is "if you don't believe in god, where do you get your morals?". That's technically a question about the origin of morality, but, as you point out, I think what they mean to ask is how an atheist can discern or justify good acts vs. bad ones.

 

[johnhanks]

who created man? who created the brain which can distinguish what is right and what is wrong? definitely god the creator of this universe

What created the brain which can distinguish what is right and what is wrong? Definitely evolution.

Now, on my side I have a mountain of biological observation; on your side you've got a scripture you will insist is infallible. Shall we agree to differ?

 

[eatingcannibal]

who created man? who created the brain which can distinguish what is right and what is wrong? definitely god the creator of this universe

Even if it's true that God created humankind and more specifically the brains/minds with which they pass judgement on behavior, that is not relevant here. What I'm asking is, on what basis is a belief in God/adherence to a religion necessary to know how to act towards the people and creatures around you? I don't think that I can make this any more plain.

 

[MSizer]

moral values in islam:
According to value theories that are determined by religion, the source of all value judgments is god, whether they are fixed only by revelation or by means of intelligence. As much as Quranic verses describe what good and evil are, they are also judgments that establish values regarding things like right-wrong, halal-haram, beautiful-ugly.
who created man? who created the brain which can distinguish what is right and what is wrong? definitely god the creator of this universe

Even if it were true that god existed, and had created us, how is that any argument for the belief that we need god to be moral people? Are you saying that if it were not for god's existence, that gratuitous violence against babies would not be wrong? I know that you won't change your mind on the existence of god, but for the sake of argument, if for some reason you ceased to believe in god tomorrow, would you suddenly think that slaughtering innnocent people and raping children is any less vile and abhorrent than you do today? I doubt it.

 

[Agnostic75]

How can any being be moral merely becuase he declares that he is moral?