Morality: Do you agree

[F1fan]

Almighty God does not "want us weak" .. we just are weak.

I'm not sure why you believe this. I suspect this is something your religion teaches you. My impression is the sort of "worthless rags" abuse that is common in Christiansity and Islam. This only feeds a believer's insecurity and emotional depenceny on religion. Non-Abrahamics have this problem.

We have a tendency to choose evil over good .. we want to satisfy our worldly desires in the short-term, and suffer due to that in the long term.
G-d has showed us HOW to avoid evil, so he does not want us to fail.
Claiming that G-d could have created us "better" is nonsense.
There are good people in the world, and there are bad .. there are strong-willed people in the world, and there are weak-willed.
We have to do the best that we can.

This seems to be a lot of dogma that was designed to fit around what is observed in some human behavior. Much of it doesn't make any sense to a thinker. As I keep pointing out if God wanted humans to be different he would have creaedt them in a different way. None of the scriptures deal with mental illness or the genetic flaws that lead to dysfuction in various ways. Nothing that rational minds observe about humans suggests there is any special design or that we have special divine minds. Your religious dogma appears to be what unscientific people would invent as the best guess. It just doesn't work in the 21st century. If you want to believe it, knock yourself out. But as we see you can't present a coherent argument to defend it, and certainly not with any evidence. All you can use is your assumptions that texts are true, and then create your own subjective justification.

Belief is one thing .. our actions are another.

Both are related. Beliefs inform actions. Look at your fellow Muslims who acted to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings in obedience to God. They acted this way because their beliefs informed them it was their moral duty. How you believe will inform your actions. You write poists that suggest a God exists in reality, but no one can show any gods exist outside of human imagination. Critical thinkers know not to make that error of judgment.

..to complicate matters, we are all capable of evil, and in times of war, we kill each other.

Being is a war is not a typical life experience. How people behave in extreme and traumatic circumstances are not assessed and judged the same as baseline social behavior. A guy might cheat on his wife, but that isn't evil. We see mivies that depict characters doing things in extraordinary circumstances that their nature wouldn't do normally. That is drama. Breaking Bad is an example of trauma pushing someone to act against their nature. Your mother was capable of drowning you as a toddler, but didn't. All mothers are capable, but they don't. The only cases we see are of mothers having extreme psychological episodes and acting without full agency. In all this where is your God? Standing by like an absent father, doing nothing, and no indication if it cares, or even exists.

A violent war in one country, can spill over to atrocities in another peaceful one .. but then you know that, and you desire to make it all about belief v disbelief.

What else would it be? Coulkd it be your God making it all happen as if we are mindless robots? Do you think what putin is doing in Ukraine is moral and objective?

You want to discuss why people are terrorists .. is that it?

You like to present a scenario that a God exists and is active in how humans behave. I point out the fly in your ointment. Of course you don't like it because it shatters your idealistic beliefs. Like I said, if theists were really on to something in their beliefs and devotion we should see theists act highly moral and consistently moral. We don't. We see many theists, especially the most fervent, believe and act immorally, and as if they are God themselves. No hubris. No humility. Just unabashed arrogance, that otehrs are wrong and the believer is right.

Religion is sometimes used in combination with other factors, and sometimes as the primary motivation. Religious terrorism is intimately connected to current forces of geopolitics.
Religious terrorism - Wikipedia

Oil / wealth, and historical events such as the world wars all play their part.
You just cannot separate religion and politics as you do.

If religious people really were moral and tapped into God's will then they would rise above politics. They don't. We see American evangelicals tied to the republican party, and done so deliberately starting with Reagan and Falwell. Theocracies use their religious authority to impose religious law onto all, and usually with intolerance, brutality, and immorality. We all know this to be the case. Your efforts to minimize this only exposes your desperation.

We are all sinners .. believers and disbelievers alike.

No we aren't. This is an example of religious abuse and violence right here. You are trying to impose your personal beliefs onto everyone. That is immoral, arrogant, and intolerant. It shows a great insecurity in your beliefs that you refuse to acknowledge that your religious beliefs are limited to you, and anyone who agrees with you. They are irrelevant to anyone else.

G-d punishes whomsoever He wills, and forgives whomsoever He wills. He is aware of our intentions, and whether they are noble or otherwise.

This is a claim. You offer no evidence that it's true, so I reject it by default.[/QUOTE]

 

[Koldo]

Yes, I would reject that claim because you are not a supernatural being, but God is said to be.

The same problem: Your premise does not lead to your conclusion. What is the hidden premise?

What about being supernatural allows one to determine what is objectively moral? Nothing in itself. So what is the hidden premise?

God wouldn't be subjectively all good, as that would depend on our view of him. But that is not the claim that religion makes, but rather that he is all good, that he can't sin etc. So whatever God does is good, because what is good is part of his very character. However the claim is that God gave us free will, so we are not forced to follow the will of God, but if we don't we will be punished for it. That is sort of the short version of it.

Therefore humans can rebel against the will of God, such as what atheists do and don't accept the will of God. But in this setup, it simply means that we do not recognize God's grace or what to say as believers do. We think we know better than God, but ultimately we are delusional because God wrote it on our hearts. Some believers will say that this is satan's work and that he is the cause and misled humans etc. But ultimately it doesn't change the fact that God is all good, it is merely us that fail or don't see it. Without God, there would be no good or evil.

So put very simple, Everything that God wills is good everything that goes against it is evil.

We purely accept them for the sake of argument in this case. I would reject all of them as well as I don't believe anything comes from God.

Why would you accept the premise that 'Everything that God wills is good everything that goes against it is evil' though?

You might as well accept the premise that everything I will is good, and everything that goes against it is evil.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I am in the minority that has bothered to read about moral relativism and non-cognitivism. Or maybe the minority that is even aware those concepts exist in the first place.

Your logic is rock solid. Of course our limitation here is that logic is totally useless when concerned w/ epistemological concepts. that is, how do we know what we can know.

It's a question that's been around w/ us for hundreds of years, back w/ Descartes. He could prove that he existed, the mere act of wondering whether he was there proved he must exist to be doing the wondering. However logic is useless in proving anyone else exists. You can tell me that you exist but I can say that I imagined that you told me that. I got a really good imagination. The only reason that I'm willing to believe you're there is because that's what I can grasp intuitively. It's my intuition, not my logic, that convinces me that you exist.

Logic is a really neat tool, but it has its limits.

 

[Koldo]

Your logic is rock solid. Of course our limitation here is that logic is totally useless when concerned w/ epistemological concepts. that is, how do we know what we can know.

It's a question that's been around w/ us for hundreds of years, back w/ Descartes. He could prove that he existed, the mere act of wondering whether he was there proved he must exist to be doing the wondering. However logic is useless in proving anyone else exists. You can tell me that you exist but I can say that I imagined that you told me that. I got a really good imagination. The only reason that I'm willing to believe you're there is because that's what I can grasp intuitively. It's my intuition, not my logic, that convinces me that you exist.

Logic is a really neat tool, but it has its limits.

And therefore...?

 

[Nimos]

The same problem: Your premise does not lead to your conclusion. What is the hidden premise?

What about being supernatural allows one to determine what is objectively moral? Nothing in itself. So what is the hidden premise?

Yes when said supernatural being is claimed to be the very one that decided what is moral and what is not.

Why would you accept the premise that 'Everything that God wills is good everything that goes against it is evil' though?

You might as well accept the premise that everything I will is good, and everything that goes against it is evil.

Im an atheist, I don't accept the premises at all, simply playing with the thought, that if God was real and the creator of morality how that would be. If it was a "real" debate of whether morality was objective or not, I would question all these things, including God.

 

[Bird123]

Same. Jesus spoke of people who said they would do something and didn’t and people who said they wouldn’t but did. I see many theists of Abrahamic persuasion in the former and atheists in the latter.

Yes, you are right!! It is a mixed bag. In a multilevel classroom people are all at different levels of understanding with many different lessons to learn. We are all children of God and all equal regardless of what one chooses to believe or not.

God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than any one person could have. Isn't in amazing the dynamics of how it all comes together so we may all learn from each other?

Ruling and Controlling are a couple of the many petty things mankind holds so dear. Many use holy books and beliefs as a way of convincing themselves they are superior to others. It is also used in the attempt to intimidate, coerce or manipulate others into becoming believers and followers.

So much is said about God that simply is not true. I have found no religion that really understands God at all.

Each will decide what the best choices really are through their own experiences. While it's true many will make very bad choices that are clearly wrong, those bad choices and the results that follow will teach far greater than any holy book.

In a multilevel classroom, one will see others learning lessons one has already learned. I see using God as an excuse to rule or control others along with valuing those petty things mankind holds so dear such as judging and condemning others will just generate hard lessons for oneself. We must allow the view of all to be seen instead of controlled in order that we might see the entire picture, the entire mosaic that is US.

No one person will be greater than any other person in God's eyes regardless of how badly anyone wants that to be true. One just might acquire greater wisdom from a single homeless man than can be found in all the holy books combined. Who knows what knowledge could be hiding in the very person we might think so badly about?

All the secrets of the universe stare us in the face. In this time-based causal universe God's actions can be seen. Unlike holy books, God's actions can not be altered by mankind. God hides nothing.

Let's Widen our own views so that we will not miss anything!!

Yes, Kelly of the Phoenix, I see your Wisdom!!

That's what I see!! It's very clear!!

 

[Augustus]

I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase it?

given everything is created according to a plan including the concepts of good and morality, what do you think good means other than what God designed it to mean?

The logical contradictory. I am after all saying that morality's truth value can only exist within minds.

so God created everything according to a plan except morality, which somehow exists independently of him?

 

[Koldo]

given everything is created according to a plan including the concepts of good and morality, what do you think good means other than what God designed it to mean?

It is not the word that matters here, but what it represents.
Let's say that God decides to create a world where the word (moral) 'good' represents in that world what the word 'tree' represent in ours. If we were to look at that world we would see a lot of trees (as per our usual understanding of what a tree is), could we then say that God created a lot of moral good in that world? Sure, by using the word 'good' as used in that world... But the content of that statement would be something completely different if we were to say the same thing about our world. Because words are like fingers pointing to something, and we must not mistake the finger (the word) with the thing being pointed by it (the content).

When we talk about moral good in our world, we are talking about how people should behave according to our perception of what is the proper behavior.

so God created everything according to a plan except morality, which somehow exists independently of him?

It exists as a consequence of his very own perception of how people should behave, and as a consequence of creating people able to have this kind of perception.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I did not say you needed them. You don't need Messengers now because they already came and revealed what was necessary.

It's the part that was apparently "necessary" that I was asking about.
What was it that was "necessary"?

Because I just gave you a model that doesn't require any "messengers" and you seemed to agree to it.
So what was "necessary"?

It is not required for everyone since some people can be moral without religion.

When is it necessary and why?

I don't know if they 'had to be told' but they have been told by Messengers throughout history, so it is impossible to know what would have happened if those Messengers had never come to earth.

Dear lord....

Well, I can pretty much guarantee you that the vast majority of humans wouldn't enjoy being in pain - mentally or physically.

And those that would enjoy that, likely will take themselves out of the gene pool soon enough.

I believe adultery is immoral because it is contrary to the Law of God, and I also believe in the sanctity of marriage for the same reason.

You do?
Can you apply the model of "suffering = bad; well-being = good" to it and explain why it's immoral in the example I gave you? Where it's with mutual consent and no physical are emotional harm is present in any way, with all parties understanding and agreeing that it is what it is?

That is a moot point since no Messenger of God would ever say that.

Did you read the bible?

Deuteronomy 20:16-18

And even if you don't accept that as a "message" from a "messenger", it's not a moot point.
Because it is about the moral compass you subscribe to.

When you subscribe to "divine command theory" morality, then whatever the authority says is good, is good. What it says is bad, is bad. And you don't even know why.

Just like I am certain that you can't properly explain, using the model of well-being, why adultery is immoral in my example.

Instead it's just "because god says so".

So, if you believe that your god commands you to go on a killing spree, then in your mind, going on a killing spree is a moral duty.

This is why this type of moral compass is so fubar. It can take a good person and make that person do the most horrible stuff imaginable, and get that person to think it is actually engaging in a righteous moral duty.

Going on a killing spree is an extreme example (although it's not hard to come up with real-life examples - you already have at least one in mind right now, I'm sure). But it also translates to smaller stuff. This is why homophobia is so persistent. This is why stem cell research is held back. This is why women don't have access to proper health care abortion.

The unquestionable acceptance of moral judgements, which can't properly be reasoned using an actual moral standard as in the given model, will always end badly sooner or later.

I accept it because I am a believer. If a Messenger was sent by God He is the authority on morality.
YOU do not have to accept it since YOU are not a believer.

The thing is though.... we share living space. We share a society. Behavior of my fellow citizens reflect back on society, peers and perhaps myself.

So whatever other people's moral standards are, can potentially affect me.
If fellow citizens state like you that they follow a "divine command theory" morality, then I am a bit worried. Because it's not a reasoned morality. It's just obedience to whatever the perceived authority is. A morality that isn't reasoned is not reasonable.

The 'actual reasoning' of people is 'different' so there can be no objective standard agreed upon by everybody.

Do you think someone will disagree with "well-being = good; suffering = bad"?

The reasoning behind the religious standard is "because God says so" but there is no conflict between the religious and secular standards since what God says has generally been incorporated into the secular laws, in case you have not noticed that.

There is an overlap, but no.
The overlap is also not the result of "god said so". But rather because those things can be actual reasoned. Like why murder is wrong.

There are no laws against working on the sabbath. There are no laws against blasphemy. There are no laws against mutual consent swinging (adultery). A married couple going to a swing club with mutual consent is not illegal or a crime.

In short: the things that "god says" supposedly that are NOT incorporated into secular morality, are things that can't be concluded through reason.

Where standards of sexual behavior are concerned is there no secular law against behaviors when they are in private, between two people, like adultery or homosexuality, because those laws would never be enforceable.

Not because those laws "would never be enforceable".
Those laws used to exist back in the day, and they still exists in many hellholes around the world.
The reason they don't exist anymore in humanist secular democracies, is because there is no reasonable argument to be made for why it shouldn't be allowed.

However, the law generally prohibits nudity in public places in the United States and nudity is also generally illegal on a person's own property if the nude person is visible to the public.

Yes. And a proper reasoned argument can be made for it.
And then there's the beach, where such rules are seriously loosened up.
And then there's nude beaches, where... well, you know off course.

There's proper reasoning for why it is so.
In secular humanism, there never is justification consisting of only "...because X said so".
If in a moral debate, that is offered as the "reason", then you pretty much lose the debate automatically. It means you have nothing.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Look at your fellow Muslims who acted to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings in obedience to God. They acted this way because their beliefs informed them it was their moral duty..

You do not know that. You just assume that.
Why is it that only a handful of Muslims are guilty of atrocities?
Why aren't the majority "obeying God"?
Why is it that not only Muslims are guilty of atrocities?

No .. Islam is not the only thing that shapes people's world views.

Critical thinkers know not to make that error of judgment..

"critical thinkers" = atheists, in your opinion.
That's just arrogance.

No we aren't. This is an example of religious abuse and violence right here. You are trying to impose your personal beliefs onto everyone..

What, by saying that we are all capable of evil, regardless of religion?
Are you trying to say that "critical thinkers" aka atheists, do not commit atrocities, while Muslims do?
What nonsense..

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why would you accept the premise that 'Everything that God wills is good everything that goes against it is evil' though?

You might as well accept the premise that everything I will is good, and everything that goes against it is evil.

Are you responsible for all that we see?
Why would one believe that a fellow human has an absolute moral authority?

The only thing that I can think of, is that the person speaks for God.
..and that is what Christians and Muslims think about Muhammad and Jesus, peace be with them.

 

[Pete in Panama]

And therefore...?

Not sure where u got lost, the question was whether right/wrong, true/false, good/bad were objective values, you responded w/ a logical presentation to "prove" they were simply individual's thoughts relative only to the individual thinkers, I pointed out that logic would not be nearly as good as some of our other tools for finding truth. What would be interesting now is discussing whether you're familiar w/ the other thinking tools and how they can serve in our discussion.

However, it's not clear whether you don't understand this or you're being intentionally difficult because you feel I'm trying your patience.

 

[Koldo]

Are you responsible for all that we see?
Why would one believe that a fellow human has an absolute moral authority?

The only thing that I can think of, is that the person speaks for God.
..and that is what Christians and Muslims think about Muhammad and Jesus, peace be with them.

Why would the one responsible for all we see also be able to create objective morality?

 

[Koldo]

Not sure where u got lost, the question was whether right/wrong, true/false, good/bad were objective values, you responded w/ a logical presentation to "prove" they were simply individual's thoughts relative only to the individual thinkers, I pointed out that logic would not be nearly as good as some of our other tools for finding truth. What would be interesting now is discussing whether you're familiar w/ the other thinking tools and how they can serve in our discussion.

However, it's not clear whether you don't understand this or you're being intentionally difficult because you feel I'm trying your patience.

What thinking tools do you want to use on this discussion? Go ahead.

 

[Koldo]

Yes when said supernatural being is claimed to be the very one that decided what is moral and what is not.


Im an atheist, I don't accept the premises at all, simply playing with the thought, that if God was real and the creator of morality how that would be. If it was a "real" debate of whether morality was objective or not, I would question all these things, including God.

I see the proper debate to be had as being about: Would God provide a more firm ground to moral claims if he exists?

This entails debating about whether God could have sovereignty over morality. If you accept the premise that he does, there is no debate to be had. This is unlike accepting a premise just for the debate's sake, on this case it entails accepting the conclusion itself.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why would the one responsible for all we see also be able to create objective morality?

..because G-d is not a person .. "He" is neither male or female and is of infinite nature.

 

[Koldo]

..because G-d is not a person .. "He" is neither male or female and is of infinite nature.

Your answer doesn't lead to the conclusion that the one responsible for all we see is also able to create objective morality.

 

[LuisDantas]

..because G-d is not a person .. "He" is neither male or female and is of infinite nature.

Interestingly, those very same traits are shared by non-existent entities as well.

Lacking personhood, gender, and boundaries is like that.

 

[Nimos]

I see the proper debate to be had as being about: Would God provide a more firm ground to moral claims if he exists?

Yes, that is basically what the two speakers are talking about in the OP. This is objective morality vs subjective morality.

This entails debating about whether God could have sovereignty over morality. If you accept the premise that he does, there is no debate to be had. This is unlike accepting a premise just for the debate's sake, on this case it entails accepting the conclusion itself.

We don't have to accept the premises as being true, merely as being what is claimed to be. So there are basically two debates mixed together here. The first one is mentioned above. The second one is between objective morality vs objective morality and whether a Universe with God gives a better or worse foundation for morality than a Universe without God.

So you would have different people at least on one end of the debate on each of these.

Believers (Objective morality) vs Atheists (Objective / Subjective morality)

Where the atheists would be split, some support objective morality and some don't.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, that is basically what the two speakers are talking about in the OP. This is objective morality vs subjective morality.


We don't have to accept the premises as being true, merely as being what is claimed to be.

I have no idea what you mean by 'merely as being what is claimed to be'.

So there are basically two debates mixed together here. The first one is mentioned above. The second one is between objective morality vs objective morality and whether a Universe with God gives a better or worse foundation for morality than a Universe without God.

What do you mean by 'foundation' here?