Morality: Do you agree

[ImmortalFlame]

I would agree.

But a believer in God I think would disagree because they believe that God exists and "God is good". Again, if God suddenly changed his mind, let's say about homosexuality being wrong. What would that make God? How many people today don't suffer and have suffered due to this? It would be impossible to claim that God is good if he for whatever reason would turn around like this. So if you would claim that God could change his mind, which he could as he can do pretty much whatever he wants, it would also mean that he was wrong and eventually evil for allowing people to suffer for this. So God and subjective morality wouldn't work as I see it, it would destroy the believer's position, to claim that God simply changes his mind whenever he feels like it.

This is dependant on whether that believer believed in a pre-scriptive moral truth or a de-scriptive moral truth. I forget the specific terminology, but it goes somewhere along the lines of:

Pre-scriptive:
Whatever God says is good is good. Therefore, if God changes their mind about something, what is good also changes. It is good or bad simply dependent on God's determination, so it does not mean that it was evil to follow God's standard before God changed their mind - it was still morally true.

De-scriptive:
God tells us what is good because it is good. It is not good just because God says so, but because what is good is an objective moral value independent of God. God tells us what is good not to decree it, but to lead us in that direction.

In my experience, most theistic moralists fall into the first category (although often they find it difficult to explicitly say so or to pin down their position on the subject - theistic morality is complicated). If there were the second type, it's possible to reach the conclusion that God can in fact lead people to do evil things.

Yes, I think you have. I don't see how these would be compatible with each other.

I think it's possible to reject a claim without feeling it necessary to argue against it. I don't tend to argue against the existence of an objective moral standard because I cannot possibly assess if there is or isn't one. I can, however, just point out that any attempt to reach that standard can only really result in a personal, subjective standard anyway.

Sure they could, but doesn't change that it is still a claim. God could also exist and objective morality is true, doesn't change that it is also just a claim.

True. All axioms are essentially just claims, and their acceptance can be considered arbitrary.

 

[Koldo]

If you mean you literally and how I would figure it out? Then I have no way of doing that, but also I wouldn't care, what that moral rule is to begin with if it doesn't involve me.

Not sure if I understood it correctly?

Ok. Just now I created a new moral rule that is universal and includes you. Will vou care about it?

 

[AppieB]

But if they were wrong, what makes you sure that we will be right?

Sure we have a better understanding, but I'm pretty sure that they back then were as certain as we are today that they were right.

We are not certain, but we have indeed a better understanding than before. But that's not the issue. I think you are confusing ontology with epistemology. Just because we might not fully know or understand the implications of an action, doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer.
We just have to work with what we have; our current knowledge about reality, science, reason, logic etc.

It is kind of like throwing the words "Good" and "Evil" around, they are descriptive words that are easily understood at a general level but are poorly defined or unspecific.

I would probably prefer "Quality of life" or "Living standard" as it would be easier, I think to define exactly what is meant and they would apply from a general perspective rather than an emotional perspective or opinion-based one.

Like healthy living conditions (house), access to medical services, security etc. Regardless of one's political view or potential hate towards certain groups of people, these things would apply regardless. Obviously one would have to spend more time defining them than I have done here.

"Quality of life" or "Living standard" is fine by me, although I prefer "well being". But that's more of a semantic discussion.
What you are actually doing here is making the goals ot the concept SMART. That's not really a definition, but a way to develop a plan in order to achieve those goals. Which is fine by the way.

 

[Koldo]

Not if you see the god as external to the universe we live in.

Irrelevant.

Getting checkmated is objectively bad in a game of chess (assuming you are playing to win which is the purpose).

That is not the purpose of the game. Chess doesn't have any purpose in itself. And even if it had, losing wouldn't be objectively bad without an additional premise.

In the game the rules aren't arbitrary, they are facts that must be worked with.

One doesn't preclude the other.
But facts have to be shown to be facts.

That the rules were arbitrary when created, doesn't make them arbitrary within the game so that any claim by a player says is equally valid.

If however both players agree to a new set of rules, they are valid. And they are the only rules that matter to them.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Was watching a debate between a Muslim and an atheist. And the Muslim make the argument that people that believe in subjective morality have no foundation for making moral judgements and are therefore not valid. Whereas people with a foundation in objective morality, meaning God as the moral judge are because this gives them a foundation for their morality.

Do you agree with this, that without God there is no moral foundation for judging right from wrong? And therefore people not believing in objective morality is not allowed or invalid when judging others?

I believe all moral codes, ethics and virtues originated from God just as all light originates from the sun. Throughout history all the Prophets have taught these things.

What people have done is plagiarise them and called them their own but they can all be traced back to the Manifestations of God. People have taken what they found useful or liked without giving due credit to their origin.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not sure where you got your definition of moral.

As I said, if morality doesn't ultimately pertain to well-being (good) and suffering (bad), then I don't know what you mean by "moral".

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=moral+means

Yes, but those are just synonyms of "moral" and "immoral". Right and wrong behavior. Goodness and badness of character.

What do all these things mean, if they don't pertain to how their manifestation affects the well-being / suffering of others and / or society?


Can goodness of character or right behavior lead to avoidable suffering for all?
Can wrong behavior lead or badness of character lead to the best possible well-being for all?

How do you distinguish between goodness and badness?
Do you have to look it up in the books of your "messengers", or do you actually have some kind of standard against which you can measure those things?

If you do, what is that standard?

Mine is well-being and suffering. What's yours?

But even with your definition, that which increases well-being / decreases suffering is highly subjective since it is not the same for everyone

It's not. Just like the difference between "healthy" and "sick" isn't a matter of opinion.

What increases my well-being would probably decrease your well-being and vice versa.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It would depend on what we talk about.

Clean air increases your well being. It increases mine also.
Strawberries increase my well-being. They might increase your suffering if you're allergic.
Loud music might make me happy while it drives you crazy.

Being hit in the face with a bat, will increase both our suffering also.
Being hacked and have our life savings stolen, will also increase both our suffering.
I don't think either of us is going to be all happy and comfortable when such would occur.

Morality has nothing to do with suffering or lack thereof.

Then what does it have to do with then?
Blind obedience to a perceived authority?

A moral act can and often does increase suffering because it involves sacrifice of what one desires.

Give an example of a good act that has only brought misery and despair.

An immoral act such as adultery can and often does increase well-being, while one is engaged in the behavior, but it causes suffering to the spouse who is cheated on.

I don't think I need to explain further. You said yourself why adultery is immoral.
Conversely, if the couple are swingers, and engage in it with mutual consent and no suffering is being caused, then it ceases to be an immoral act.

It is precisely the suffering caused that makes it immoral.

Please refer to the definition above.

Your definition didn't clarify anything imo.
You just gave synonyms. It didn't include a method or standard to distinguish between good and bad.

In the well-being / suffering context, you get exactly that. A standard.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But God did not decide those things.

He sure did in the bible.

And the "but" isn't relevant either.
The point is that he could.

If you're saying he couldn't, then you are implying that god uses some standard himself.
What is that standard?

Might does not make right because it is not God's omnipotence that makes His laws right, it is His omniscience.

Why would omniscience make someone good?

 

[sayak83]

The Taliban are not external to the world, they are part of it. They can be replaced. There are numerous competing governments with different values.

An omnimax God made the world and everything in it according to their own design. Even the ability to conceptualise an idea of morality is entirely reliant on their will.

To all humans this God's moral laws are objective standards by which their actions can be judged, just as checkmate objectively ends a chess match.

They are independent of any subjective preferences of anyone in the world.

In this designed world, they are as objective as scientific laws. If you insist moral laws are subjective as god chose them, the scientific laws are also subjective as they are dependent on God's will also.

On a meta level, whether an Omnimax God's choices can ever be considered subjective depends on your theology. There are arguments that it couldn't be considered subjective, but arguments based on theologies of gods I don't believe in aren't really that meaningful

If God created the laws of physics, then yes, they are subjective as well as they are based on his personal preferences only. The idea of whether the being whose personal preferences they are being omnimax has really nothing to do with this. Because omnimax only tell about the capability of the person to impose his will, not whether the will itself is based on some objective criteria or personal choice.
It can be argued that the rules of logic and mathematics are truly objective because not even God could change them if he wanted to.

 

[sayak83]

Because he is the very foundation for it, it is from him the claim that objective morality comes.

Equal to asking who/what decides that 2 + 2 = 4 and not 5.

Actually for the 2+2 case, nobody, not even God can decide otherwise. Number theory shows that you simply cannot create an alternative logically coherent summation system where 2+2=5 holds. All such systems eventually collapse to create vicious paradoxes....like we can prove in such systems that the same identical proposition is both True And False.
That is what makes maths objective. It is independent of the personal preferences of any being, even an Omnimax being could not make it otherwise.

 

[Augustus]

Irrelevant.

Pertinent

That is not the purpose of the game. Chess doesn't have any purpose in itself. And even if it had, losing wouldn't be objectively bad without an additional premise.

The game has a purpose.

Why any individual chooses to play at any given point is a different issue.

One doesn't preclude the other.
But facts have to be shown to be facts.

You can read the rules of chess, they are facts.

If a God exists, they can also create facts, including moral facts.

No different from creating a sea or a monkey.

If however both players agree to a new set of rules, they are valid. And they are the only rules that matter to them.

Then they aren't playing chess but something else.

Hence if you are playing in a Chess tournament you can't make up new rules even if your opponent agrees. They are not valid.

 

[Koldo]

Pertinent

The game has a purpose.

Why any individual chooses to play at any given point is a different issue.

How do you figure what is the purpose in chess?
There is a set of rules in chess and a way to determine who wins and who loses. Whether winning is the purpose in chess is not addressed by the rules in themselves.

You can read the rules of chess, they are facts.

You can also read someone's moral rules. So?

If a God exists, they can also create facts, including moral facts.

No different from creating a sea or a monkey.

Completely different. Sea and monkeys have physical properties.

Then they aren't playing chess but something else.

Does this mean we are not playing chess nowadays considering the rules have changed along the time?

Hence if you are playing in a Chess tournament you can't make up new rules even if your opponent agrees. They are not valid.

Playing in a chess tournament entails accepting the rules of the tournament. But joining the tournament is entirely optional.

 

[Augustus]

If God created the laws of physics, then yes, they are subjective as well as they are based on his personal preferences only. The idea of whether the being whose personal preferences they are being omnimax has really nothing to do with this. Because omnimax only tell about the capability of the person to impose his will, not whether the will itself is based on some objective criteria or personal choice.
It can be argued that the rules of logic and mathematics are truly objective because not even God could change them if he wanted to.

Objective morality generally mean that there are standards by we can say an action is definitively "good" or 'bad" that are external to individual and applicable to all humans.

Assuming this definition, do you agree that a God could clearly create such a system?

Other than this though, to say a God has "personal preferences" in the same manner as a human assumes there are other preferences that exist, but the "preferences" of the god are the only things that exist or could exist.

If I change my mind that's just a difference in thought, the equivalent for a God would change the very nature of reality. Whatever the God 'thinks' is objective, certainly for everything in existence.

Maths and logic would also be dependent, god's will as everything else would be.

 

[Augustus]

How do you figure what is the purpose in chess?
There is a set of rules in chess and a way to determine who wins and who loses. Whether winning is the purpose in chess is not addressed by the rules in themselves.

The rules of chess disagree:

The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game.

https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf

Completely different. Sea and monkeys have physical properties.

Only contingent on God's continuing will.

Does this mean we are not playing chess nowadays considering the rules have changed along the time?

You are not playing the same game.

Playing in a chess tournament entails accepting the rules of the tournament. But joining the tournament is entirely optional.

I can make up my own rules in a tournament, but as they are objectively unacceptable I will face the consequences decided upon by the authorities. I cannot opt out and remain in the tournament.

Living in a world created by a God entails the factual existence of the rules of the God. None of this is optional. There is no way to opt out and free myself from the rules of the game and the consequences for breaking them.

Counterpoints that rely on being able to opt out or change the parameters of the game don't work.


(Happy birthday BTW )

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am familiar enough with the Bible, I just don't believe that God actually did those things...
I think that much of the Old Testament is anthropomorphic.

I also don't believe that God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. I believe these were fictional stories that contained spiritual messages.

I believe that what is on this Christian website is completely absurd. Christians have turned God into a man.

Who was walking with Adam and Eve in the garden?

God created human beings to have fellowship with him. That's why he was walking in the garden: he wanted to meet with Adam and Eve and spend time with them.Sep 1, 2010

God Walks in the Garden - Today Daily Devotional

According to Baha'i beliefs, God neither walks in a garden nor does God 'spend time' with humans. God does not want 'fellowship' with men. God is forever one and alone, self-subsisting.

“Beware, beware, lest thou be led to join partners with the Lord, thy God. He is, and hath from everlasting been, one and alone, without peer or equal, eternal in the past, eternal in the future, detached from all things, ever-abiding, unchangeable, and self-subsisting. He hath assigned no associate unto Himself in His Kingdom, no counsellor to counsel Him, none to compare unto Him, none to rival His glory.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 192

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
In case you don't know, Baha'is hold different positions on the Bible and we are free to do so.

"Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree."
A Baháí View of the Bible

In case you are interested, I lean towards the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces.

"The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature."
A Baháí View of the Bible

This is what makes me wonder about "Messengers." A God who is "detached from all things" has no messages to send to anybody, and a Godd who is "unchangeable" doesn't have to change it up with a "new Messenger" from time to time.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In all these debates one side will be based on the premise that God exists, except if that is what the debate is about, otherwise there would be no debate, to begin with
But isn't that pretty normal in debates? I mean often people will debate based on an assumption of how something might be or turn out to be. Politics, theories etc. Religious debates are no different I think.

No, because then you are not engaging in debate. Debaters have to establish what they can agree on before they can use those agreements to speak to the issue at hand. Simply believing a god exists versus not can't be a debate at all -- it's just an endless, childish "yes He does, "no, he doesn't" back and forth forevermore.

 

[Soandso]

I work long hours, so apologies for not getting back sooner

Just because other people and cultures disagree on something, that means there is no objective truth on the matter?

Yes. Morals are rooted in opinions, nothing else. If morals were objective, they could be studdied and a valid theory could be constructed. Unfortunately, morals only work within the context of a local culture and are based entirely upon what that local culture deems acceptable

So, for instance, flat earthers represent something of a subculture. And they disagree with scientists over the shape of the Earth. So that means there is no real "objectively true" shape of the Earth out there? I mean... how can there be? People disagree over it.

Are you suggesting that something that can be externally varified like the shape of the planet is on the same level as something that is based entirely off of human opinion like morals?

The point of proving objective morality is to prove that it can be objectively observed just like the shape of the earth. So then, if morality is truly objective, why are we still having this doscussion? Where is the theoretical model for objective morality? I'd love to even see a well structured hypothesis if one exists

And how can you make a statement like "the human condition is improving?" Better and worse in the ethical dimension suggests an objective ethics.

Because, according to my opinion, I want to see less needless suffering in the world. What I see as "needless suffering" is open to criticism from different people based on the context of the culture they experience and the opinions they have formed

Wife-beating is acceptable in some parts of the world. I doubt it seems like an improvement to those people who see their way of life vanishing. A relativist would say something like, the world is becoming more acceptable according to the cultural opinions of Westerners (or something like that).

There was a time when wife beating was acceptable pretty much world wide (exceptions existing, ofcourse). Same with slavery, witch burnings, and other monstrosities us humans liked to enact on eachother. To them, those things helped to keep a more orderly, and overall moral, society

The Age of Enlightenment has done much to give people more to think about on the nature of human suffering and what is and is not necessary. This will continue to evolve as our culture continues to change. Not that long ago stealing a horse was an offense with a death sentence attatched to it, but the culture changed. It always will change

Hopefully, due to the Information Age, we will have many more pools of information to draw from in order to find pathways that lead to less suffering. Whether or not that happens, though, will take time to realize. That would fall in line with the overall trajectory for the way things have been going, at least

I'd like to see a Star Trek future - but we still have time before we can get to that point

 

[Nimos]

Pre-scriptive:
Whatever God says is good is good. Therefore, if God changes their mind about something, what is good also changes. It is good or bad simply dependent on God's determination, so it does not mean that it was evil to follow God's standard before God changed their mind - it was still morally true.

This doesn't really make sense I think. Let's imagine I'm God:

"Killing people of colour is good" - so now a lot of people go out and do that.

one month later...

"Killing people of colour is evil and you will be punished for it by going to hell" - now everyone stops.

Those people of colour who got killed 1 month ago, because I thought that was good are now dead. Both of these statements can't be considered morally good.

In my experience, most theistic moralists fall into the first category (although often they find it difficult to explicitly say so or to pin down their position on the subject - theistic morality is complicated). If there were the second type, it's possible to reach the conclusion that God can in fact lead people to do evil things.

I have personally never heard anyone explaining God's nature to be like that, or at least I have never understood it like that. As far as I know, believers don't make the argument that God goes around changing his mind as you have explained it.

I think it's possible to reject a claim without feeling it necessary to argue against it. I don't tend to argue against the existence of an objective moral standard because I cannot possibly assess if there is or isn't one. I can, however, just point out that any attempt to reach that standard can only really result in a personal, subjective standard anyway.

That doesn't really make sense I think.

If you "can't possibly assess if there is or isn't one" then how would you ever reach the conclusion that "can only result in a personal, subjective standard anyway"?

That is like me saying, "I have no clue whether intelligent aliens live somewhere else in the universe, but nonetheless, the only valid answer is that there are." the conclusion doesn't follow from the first statement. If I have no clue or way of telling if aliens could be somewhere in the Universe, the conclusion should be "I don't know" or "I don't know, but I think it is more likely, but is purely me guessing".

 

[Nimos]

Ok. Just now I created a new moral rule that is universal and includes you. Will vou care about it?

Unless I know what it is, no. But then again you are not God, your moral code is not said to be written into every human as a truth.

 

[Nimos]

"Quality of life" or "Living standard" is fine by me, although I prefer "well being". But that's more of a semantic discussion.
What you are actually doing here is making the goals ot the concept SMART. That's not really a definition, but a way to develop a plan in order to achieve those goals. Which is fine by the way.

I think there is a difference, because "Quality of life" applies to everyone, based on objective values which could be defined. Whereas "well-being" is subjective based on who you ask.

Even a person like Hitler would fall into the category of "Quality of life" as it doesn't matter what his political opinion or worldview would be, it is obviously not bulletproof I would agree.

But even what well-being means, is equally as difficult to define as "good" is I think. This is probably also why Sam Harris doesn't define it whenever he talks about it, but simply uses it as a general term as if everyone agrees on its meaning.

So I do agree with you, that it does have a few semantic vibes to it, but I think it would be far easier to reach a definition the more objective you can define or approach something.

 

[Nimos]

Actually for the 2+2 case, nobody, not even God can decide otherwise. Number theory shows that you simply cannot create an alternative logically coherent summation system where 2+2=5 holds. All such systems eventually collapse to create vicious paradoxes....like we can prove in such systems that the same identical proposition is both True And False.
That is what makes maths objective. It is independent of the personal preferences of any being, even an Omnimax being could not make it otherwise.

Yes, but you can look at objective morality in the same way, if you want to understand what is meant by it. I think you could make a valid case of why God wouldn't do it and why he hasn't changed his moral rules, as we would be able to notice it.