Morality: Do you agree

[Nimos]

No. God is just an avatar for morality which has been a human concept all along.

I don't think it is a human concept, given that animals show signs of morality as well.

 

[Eli G]

But God would give a foundation for it, right? Assuming that God is real.

Of course: humans are not animals, not matter what evolutionist try to imply with their philosophy of the survival of the fittest.
Everyone has an idea of what a correctly oriented population and an uncivilized community are.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't think it is a human concept, given that animals show signs of morality as well.

Yes but morality is subjective and not actually universal from one being to another. There are varying standards from person to person and is gauged by each individual with variations as to what is moral or not.

I think its still a concept because it can be reflected upon. I'm not sure if animals other than humans have that capability to gage and reflect on one's actions.

 

[Heyo]

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.

Bad analogy. We have objective measures that show that the earth is not flat. But what is objectively wrong in being naked in public?

 

[Vee]

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?

No. I believe all humans were created with a degree of morality. Can that be influenced by a culture, religion, etc? Sure. But the base is already part of who we are.
If morality depended exclusively on religion, religious people would never do bad things.

 

[Nimos]

A bit of both, kind of.

I'm a moral anti-realist, so while I believe that moral axioms are subjective, once you have accepted the axiom you can still make objectively true moral assessments. I mean, technically even the axiom "God's moral standard is correct" is subjective in a way, so it could perhaps be argued that evoking a God doesn't necessarily alleviate the issue of subjectivity.

But if God is real and is the moral judge, which is obviously the assumption. Such a being would give a foundation for objective morality. But if no such judge exists, what would the foundation for objective morality be?

 

[Eli G]

But if God is real and is the moral judge, which is obviously the assumption. Such a being would give a foundation for objective morality. But if no such judge exists, what would the foundation for objective morality be?

That's why the Bible says:

Rom. 2:14 For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them, and by their own thoughts they are being accused or even excused. 16 This will take place in the day when God through Christ Jesus judges the secret things of mankind, according to the good news I declare.

Those of us who study the Scriptures know that it not only teaches us about religious matters, but also about secular and civil matters in a practical and realistic way.

 

[Heyo]

But God would give a foundation for it, right? Assuming that God is real.

And assuming there is only one (disputed, even by believers), that we know it's moral preferences and that they are the same for all believers (highly disputed).

 

[Nimos]

It is, of course and tthat is the reason why God requires his servants to obey the secular authorities, because they reflect his justice to a certain extent. Humans are "lineage" of God in the sense of our conscience and way of reasoning the world. But God is always the superior authority, because since He was the one who created us, he knows better than we ourselves what should be the way to treat each other, and what is good for us or not of all the things that could occur to us.

But what I mean based on what you wrote.

You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an atheist making a moral call compared to that of a believer. Meaning that whether God imposed morality on us or not, it would be impossible to tell the difference. Meaning if God's existence were based on morality, he must as well not exist.

 

[Nimos]

Totally disagree.

So if objective morality doesn't exist, your moral opinion as a person is valid or to be taken seriously when calling another person immoral? That is his claim, that without objective morality, your moral judgement is simply your opinion and therefore in sense invalid.

 

[Eli G]

But what I mean based on what you wrote.

You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an atheist making a moral call compared to that of a believer. Meaning that whether God imposed morality on us or not, it would be impossible to tell the difference. Meaning if God's existence were based on morality, he must as well not exist.

I agree.

However: to what extent is an atheist committed to his own moral principles?

If it affected his interests, would still be faithful to those principles? And what if his life is in danger? Or if one of his children decides to violate those principles, would he still hold them against his child, or would he give them up to protect him?

 

[Koldo]

That's a HUGE question. A couple of us are sorting through it in the philosophy subforum, here.

Suffice it to say, it's perfectly fine to reject the idea of objective morality. Plenty of good arguments to be made against it.

Some people like carrot cake. Other people don't. It's a subjective matter whether carrot cake is good or not. Maybe morality works like that.

But if someone thinks that all morality boils down to subjectivity, they should be careful about what they say. Somebody beating the crap out of his wife because she didn't have dinner on time cannot be wrong in any kind of objective sense to them. So moral relativists should be careful to point out in such cases that there is nothing wrong with such an act. They should say something like "such an act does not suit my preferences."

But often times, so-called moral relativists express moral outrage at things like that. By their own worldview, they shouldn't do that.

The distinction between a moral objectivist and a moral relativist isn't about how we phrase our moral judgments. It is about what we recognize as granting truth value to moral claims.

 

[Koldo]

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?

My question is: What is the distinction between a regular human being decreeing what is the objective morality and God doing the same?

I see no distinction. It is just an arbitrary set of rules created by someone.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Bad analogy. We have objective measures that show that the earth is not flat. But what is objectively wrong in being naked in public?

It's a horrible analogy to try to argue that objective ethics exists.

But it's a GREAT analogy to demonstrate that just because people disagree that doesn't mean the matter only boils down to opinion. I wasn't being so ambitious with the analogy. The statement I was arguing against was "but people disagree so there can't be an objective truth." The analogy works fine as a counterpoint to that. But admittedly, it doesn't do a whole lot more.

Nothing wrong with being naked in public. Not that I can see, anyway. We'd have to add an element in, such as a flasher or something who walks around harassing people with his own nudity. But in that case, what's wrong with that is the harassment of others, NOT the public nudity.

 

[Koldo]

So if objective morality doesn't exist, your moral opinion as a person is valid or to be taken seriously when calling another person immoral? That is his claim, that without objective morality, your moral judgement is simply your opinion and therefore in sense invalid.

What does the word 'invalid' mean on this context?

 

[vulcanlogician]

The distinction between a moral objectivist and a moral relativist isn't about how we phrase our moral judgments. It is about what we recognize as granting truth value to moral claims.

Very precise. And, yes. You are correct there.

But if a certain thing grants truth to our moral claims, then that will sometimes affect how we phrase things. If a moral relativist wants to be as accurate as you were in the above post, then they would not imply that there is anything essentially wrong with wife beating. They would cite cultural or personal preference.

 

[Heyo]

No. I believe all humans were created with a degree of morality. Can that be influenced by a culture, religion, etc? Sure. But the base is already part of who we are.
If morality depended exclusively on religion, religious people would never do bad things.

And irreligious people would do good things only by accident.
Some ideas of morality are innate to us (and some other animals) but we need to think about those feelings to make them into a moral compass. We also have feelings that are anti social and they can lead us to immoral actions. And that is where human (and other sapient animals) morality comes in. It keeps us from acting immoral.
The best rational argument for a less subjective morality is: "what if everyone did that?". I.e. our ability to anticipate reactions to our actions. I wouldn't call it objective but it comes close:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." - Immanuel Kant

 

[Vee]

And irreligious people would do good things only by accident.

Excellent point.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

No, I do not agree with any single part of that. It is really impressive how utterly unconvincing that discourse is to me. I can barely believe that there are people who actually say such things and somehow mean it.

What he is proposing is theocentric deontology - the idea that morality is essentially learning to follow god-given rules of some kind. A central tenet of Islam, unfortunately.

I have no words strong enough to express how destructive and obscene that idea is to my eyes. It is a grave and direct betrayal of both concepts: morality and deity.

Obedience is just obedience. And obedience to a deity saddled by the constraints of Abrahamic expectations, perhaps most of all of the Islamic variety, is a very poor substitute indeed for morality.

Why? Because morality is the emergent property of the reunion of discernment with empathy. Obedience is passive while morality is very active and in fact very ambitious. Only people who fail to understand the basics of morality would ever confuse it with some form of obedience or rules-following.

Add to that how contradictory and dysfunctional Muslim conceptions of deity are, and how difficult it is to establish a clear meaning to subjective or objective morality, and there aren't even shreds of that claim left to be challenged.

Morality can be objetive and IMO should be, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with rule-following nor deities. Morality is objective in as much as it demands clarity of concepts, actions and omissions; but it can also be called subjective in the sense that it can only exist when it refers to specific subjects that are affected by those actions and omissions.

 

[Eli G]

Humans can adopt customs that apparently do not harm them, but the fact that communities get used to certain activities which seem "normal" to them does not make them correct.

Jehovah's Witnesses know that our God does not condone adultery, divorce, or multiple marriages (Matt. 19:3-6). In some countries, for example, multiple marriages are legally permitted, but a Jehovah's Witness in those countries can only have one wife. The conscience of someone who does not serve Jehovah would be clear no matter what, since marrying more than one wife in those countries is not illegal, but that of a Jehovah's Witness would not be.

God's servants obey biblical principles not precisely because they are necessary for this system of things, or because they are consider legal or illegal in the secular sense, but because in addition to coming from a higher and more righteous source of wisdom, it is what is required of those who will live on earth forever.