Morality: Do you agree

[Ponder This]

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?

1. Without God there is no moral foundation.
and
2. People are capable of moral judgment.

are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps this is a false dichotomy?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Mmmh. I disagree.

The logical way to explain the existence of order in a universe that supposedly arose on its own is that there was a hand behind its raise, ordering everything. That's the logical way to explain it to someone who doesn't have a preconceived idea about the non/existence of a Designer of the universe.

What about a person without a preconceived idea either way about God's existence or nonexistence? Such a person could suspend judgment on whether or not a deity exists and yet still come to the conclusion that the Pythagorean theorem arises due to the structural relation between three points, and wasn't necessarily created by God.

Heck, even a committed theist could conclude that.

 

[Eli G]

What about a person without a preconceived idea either way about God's existence or nonexistence? Such a person could suspend judgment on whether or not a deity exists and yet still come to the conclusion that the Pythagorean theorem arises due to the structural relation between three points, and wasn't necessarily created by God.

Heck, even a committed theist could conclude that.

I don't understand your point.

That a law is discovered says absolutely nothing about why it exists. You must reason on that later.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you agree with this, that without God there is no moral foundation for judging right from wrong?

Yes, I agree with this since I believe God sets the standards for human morality by revealing laws through the Messengers of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

But the problem with the Muslim's argument is that there is no need for God in order to have objective morality. In fact, even if God exists and created the entire universe, God's sayso cannot be what makes something morally wrong.

If not from God, where would objective morality come from?
If not God's laws, what makes something morally wrong?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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'ld say the exact opposite.

"god's morality" is the morality of psychopaths. It's not a morality at all. It's just obedience to a perceived authority.

And actual morality is reasoned morality.
And I'ld say that my moral compass is not grounded in subjectivity, but in objectivity.

And that objectivity is, simplistically put: harm = bad, well-being = good.

Actions and decision that cause or lead to unnecessary suffering are thus bad.
Actions and decision that cause or lead to a decrease in suffering / increase in well-being are thus good.

Here's the thing: to know what results in such, requires knowledge of the world and stuff. So those standards tend to shift, as we learn more, as our knowledge progresses.

Whereas a "divine command" morality is set in stone and doesn't change.
On "divine command" morality, keeping slaves is just fine, if the "divine ruler" says it is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's an interesting topic. I agree with the Muslim to some extent.

People who call themselves moral relativists often want to treat moral debates as if they are more than matters of opinion. But in order to do that, you need some kind of objective basis for morality.

Objective morality means you need an objective manner to define "good" and "bad".
Referring to a god's opinions of those, is not that.

 

[Eli G]

We are aware that life exists. No scientist seems to be able to explain its origin.

I'ld say the exact opposite.

"god's morality" is the morality of psychopaths. It's not a morality at all. It's just obedience to a perceived authority.

And actual morality is reasoned morality.
And I'ld say that my moral compass is not grounded in subjectivity, but in objectivity.

And that objectivity is, simplistically put: harm = bad, well-being = good.

Actions and decision that cause or lead to unnecessary suffering are thus bad.
Actions and decision that cause or lead to a decrease in suffering / increase in well-being are thus good.

Here's the thing: to know what results in such, requires knowledge of the world and stuff. So those standards tend to shift, as we learn more, as our knowledge progresses.

Whereas a "divine command" morality is set in stone and doesn't change.
On "divine command" morality, keeping slaves is just fine, if the "divine ruler" says it is.

Well, when people were more religious a few years ago (like before 1914), was the world better or worse than now?

2 Tim. 3:1 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually there are many who disagree with that. Certainly i have been told on many occasions that because i am atheist i have no morality

Whether one is moral or not has nothing to do with what one believes, it is determined by how one acts.
An atheist can be moral or immoral.
A believer can be moral or immoral.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

It's at best a false dichotomy.
As if morality can only have objective foundations if it's based on the whims of a god.

At worst, it's just wrong... because god's opinions are objective as well.


That, and the fact that mere obedience to authority, is not acting morally. That's just obedience.

 

[Trailblazer]

Objective morality means you need an objective manner to define "good" and "bad".
Referring to a god's opinions of those, is not that.

If not God's opinions, then what determines what is good and bad?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

You can ask the same of theists.
This is not an argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

But what is objectively wrong in being naked in public?

It offends other people.

 

[sun rise]

We are aware that life exists. No scientist seems to be able to explain its origin.

Well, when people were more religious a few years ago (like before 1914), was the world better or worse than now?

2 Tim. 3:1 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.

Quoting the Bible as proof of something does not convince most. I can quote the Hindu conception of the Kali Yuga or the Hadith of Muhammad:

The time is near in which nothing will remain of Islam but its name, and
of the Quran but its mere appearance, and the mosques of Muslims will be
destitute of of knowledge and worship; and the learned will be the worst
people under the heavens; and contention and strife will issue from them,
and it will return upon themselves.
...
Ye follower of Muhammad, I swear by the Lord, if ye did but know what I
know of the future state, verily ye would laugh little and cry much.
...
Men will be liars towards the end of the world; and will relate such
stories as neither you nor your fathers ever heard. Then avoid them, that
they may not lead you astray and throw you into contention and strife.​

 

[Altfish]

Good. That is why God gave us his written word: to educate us on what is correct and what is not.

Is. 48:17 This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, the Holy One of Israel:
“I, Jehovah, am your God,
The One teaching you to benefit yourself,
The One guiding you in the way you should walk.
18 If only you would pay attention to my commandments!
Then your peace would become just like a river
And your righteousness like the waves of the sea.
19 Your offspring would be as many as the sand
And your descendants as its grains.
Their name would never be cut off or annihilated from before me.”

Like you are to your children, Jehovah is to the human beings. Some are rebellious like some children, that is truth.

Did you know that for the formation of the first international declaration of human rights several leaders of different religions were summoned to express their points of view?

Very good but irrelevant to my teaching.
One does NOT need religion to teach morals, The Golden Rule existed long before modern religions.

 

[Eli G]

I remember when I was a child. We could take a nap without bolting the door. We could also be on the street until any time, because the dangers were minimal.

Some people don't remember those times... or never knew them. That is why they do not realize the reality of the times and the moral decline that has occurred lately.

Has the invention of atheistic morality become something really beneficial for humanity?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

i have to wonder when seeing a question like this...
i was raised in an essentially non Christian home. having said that, most in my family kind referred to themselves as either catholic or church of england although did not study or participate actively in religious traditions.
So when someone brings up the atheists cannot have morality because they do not believe in God, i make the case that we do have built into us a certain level of morality because we know of God.

An atheist can deny they believe in God, but they cannot deny they know of Him and that is the point...God stated in the New Covenant that instead of relying on individuals to teach others about His statutes and laws, he would write them on our hearts and in our minds. We all have this sense of right and wrong inside of us, however, even for those who claim otherwise, we also get it from "osmosis" as a result of modeling by other individuals we associate with as we mature.

 

[vulcanlogician]

If not from God, where would objective morality come from?
If not God's laws, what makes something morally wrong?

I actually took a deep dive into that very question a few days ago. The post is here. You will want to scroll down past the "***" to get to the part where I present the arguments for what concerns your first question.

I'm very willing to make a strong, logically sound case and treat any objections you may have.

Your second question is complicated. The answer doesn't fit in a fortune cookie.

But the nutshell reply is that things are wrong for reasons. And those reasons (not God's commands) are what makes those things wrong. What reasons, and how do we figure them out? No more room on the fortune cookie. I laid my position out in more detail in the thread I linked you to. I haven't the strength to repeat it all, since the discussion is still going on over there.

 

[Polymath257]

You probably mean: why anyone would *want* to live on Earth forever IN THESE CONDITIONS.

The real thing is that millions of people want to life longer, and that is why medicine exists.

Longer is not the same as forever.

I cannot even imagine conditions that would make living forever anything but pure torture. Anything past a few tens of millions of years would get brutal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good. That is why God gave us his written word: to educate us on what is correct and what is not.

And what that resulted into is a whole bunch of christians who are intolerant, homophobic, misogynistic,...

Who for the better part of their history also found slavery morally justifiable. And some still do.