Objective Morals. Are they any better?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Solzhenitsyn was an eyewitness to the worst that humanity has ever done. His insights into what it takes to turn men into the sort of people who can do what was done in the Soviet Union as probably the most relevant source on the malevolence and depravity of mankind that was produced during the 20th century.
His conclusion was that the people who did those things did them because they thought that their was no God watching them. Without God all things are permissible,.

I have never heared of this fellow... but who died and made him the ultimate authority on the supposed reasons of soviet barbarity?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah all those wars had NO POLITICAL motives.

That's completely irrelevant, since your argument was that the soviets did what they did because they thought, apparantly, that "no god was watching".

So is this now an acknowledgement that their nonbelief wasn't necessarily relevant to their behaviour or...?
At least you acknowledge, implicitly, that believing a god IS watching, isn't necessarily a deterrent either.

So either way, you just seriously diminished the relevance of being a believer or not, in conctext of exhibiting barbaric behaviour.

It seems that without religion war is just as prevalent so maybe religion was not the cause of those other wars.

Then the reverse is necessarily also true. You can't have it both ways.

Atheist governments

What is an "atheist government"?

actually seem to be a little more bloodthirsty than the religious ones if you do the numbers

First, I wonder how the crusades would have gone if the christians had access to the kind of weaponry and technology we had in the 1950s.

Secondly, the governments you are labeling "atheist" here, are really communist and fascist governments
To pretend that these are the same things, is simply brutally dishonest.

I thought the argument was that without God to mess things up we would reach some sort of human induced golden age of reason.

Was it? Who claimed that?

Is that really what you see as happening?

What I see happening, is that secular democracy has brought a standard of living and freedom that is unheared of throughout human history.

Btw... the christianity that i follow has not been responsible for a single death in war fare in the last 2000 years.

Cool. The humanism I follow hasn't been responsible for any deaths either.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Personally, I find it ridiculous when a religious person defends their morals as being the better ones.
The main argument a religious person uses to defend this claim is that their morals come from God.
I don't quite understand why a moral coming from God is called "Objective".
Maybe because in the eyes of a religious person God is impartial and has no reason to favor any of the sides, one way or the other.
That's what I think they believe, not sure that is correct.
There is a problem with that logic:
How can the morals from a "Subjective being" be consider "Objective"?
That doesn't make any sense.
That is a semi contradiction to me.
You believe in an unproven God but the morals taught by this unproven God are proven (objective).
I hear that all the time from very educated people who engage in long and intricate discussions trying to corner the opponent in logic traps trying to prove their point.
For the purpose of this discussion:
Subjective means beliefs not proven.
Objective means proven facts.

How are objective morals better than subjective ones?
Are morals from God better than morals from atheists or non-believers?
Any proof of that?
Better for whom, just believers?

Let's go with taking your idea to its fulfillment:

1) There is no god
2) Therefore, all morals are either biological imperatives, a societal subjective construct, or both
3) Paedophilia? Once there are enough voting paedophiles, we can make that legal
4) Murder? Once we realize the fittest survive, etc. ...

Or we can say, "God exists, is moral, makes absolute morals"

 

[Augustus]

It's interesting that you should mention ISIS, because I wouldn't be so quick to say that their atrocities are moral in their opinion...

It's not really their opinion. It's rather the opinion of the authority that they blindlessly obbey. Or at least: what they try to hide behind.
These people avoid having themselves to answer to, because they unload that baggage on their god. "God thinks it's moral, who am I to question that?"

It's actually what makes "divine command theory" as a moral worldview extremely problematic.

Their violence was far more strategic and prescribed through the work of a number of jihadi clerics who were certainly not 'blindly following authority', but constructing a sophisticated plan for revolution (see: The Management of Savagery )

It doesn't really differ from any utopian ideological system that advocates 'the end justifies the means'. Modern jihadism for example borrows from Leninism in its idea of a revolutionary vanguard.

The appeal of redemptive violence in support of utopian goals extends far beyond religion and Divine command.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Solzhenitsyn was an eyewitness to the worst that humanity has ever done.

Ah, he did not live to see the Caliphate.

 

[Augustus]

I have never heared of this fellow... but who died and made him the ultimate authority on the supposed reasons of soviet barbarity?

The idea there was no god was a core axiom of Marxist philosophy from the start. From this came the idea that because religious values were a form of false consciousness they must be discarded and replaced with a new morality.

For example, Leon Trotsky: “We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life”.

Excerpts from Karl Marx: A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

"The criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.

The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being; therefore it reaches the categorical imperative of overthrowing all relationships in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being.

There therefore was no distinction between [Marxism's] philosophical views regarding atheism and it's political views.

The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.

Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."

There can be no doubt that the fact that the new state of the USSR led by the communist party, with a program permeated by the spirit of militant atheism, gives the reason why this state is successfully surmounting the great difficulties that stand in its way - that neither "heavenly powers" nor the exhortations of all the priests in all the world can prevent its attaining its aims it has set itself

Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.

Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism"


While Soviet communism is used incorrectly and unfairly bash all atheists, it is equally wrong to marginalise the importance of atheism within Marxist-Leninist communism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The appeal of redemptive violence in support of utopian goals extends far beyond religion and Divine command.

Sure. It does sound very much like the same species though.
It's all about dogmatic adherence to ideology and hiding behind that.

 

[Augustus]

It's all about dogmatic adherence to ideology and hiding behind that.

True dat.

Ideology can make intelligent people with a highly attuned sense of morality commit the vilest atrocities all while thinking they are doing good.

Evil done out of evil intentions is the statistical rarity, evil done in the name of good is the norm.

"What vileness would you not commit to rid the world of violence... Sink into the mud, embrace the butcher, but change the world: it needs it"

 

[stvdv]

Personally, I find it ridiculous when a religious person defends their morals as being the better ones.
The main argument a religious person uses to defend this claim is that their morals come from God.
I don't quite understand why a moral coming from God is called "Objective".

Interesting Post

Hypothetical: "God" exists + Some Bible stories (and other Scripture's stories are true):

First : "anything coming from God" = literally "hearsay"
Second: "God" is not into this business of "providing scientific proof" as most Atheist would prefer Him to do (Rather the opposite)

A) Maybe 00.001% is allegedly the Voice of "God" speaking for Real (e.g. Bible stories in which "God" is speaking to Moses)

B) Maybe 99.999% is allegedly the Voice of "God" speaking to a Prophet, who allegedly hears an "ethereal voice"
* And many times the Prophet tells us "God told me"
* And many times the Prophet tells us "God told me to tell you"
* And many times the ones told by the Prophet tell us "God told my Prophet to us disciples to tell the World"

So, one thing is very clear here. It is definitely not objective. It is at least triple subjective "Hearsay".

Why humans use the phrase "my morals come from God, so they are superior" is obvious IMO. Centuries ago people were very gullible, and could not Google if things were "true" or "hoax", and most were not very educated. Some religious groups took advantage creating a "Hell story" + "Devil story" to scare the sjit out of them. Of course when you now tell them "God said", that was enough to trigger their brainwashed fears.

I don't quite understand why a moral coming from God is called "Objective".
Maybe because in the eyes of a religious person God is impartial and has no reason to favor any of the sides, one way or the other.

As I understand the Scriptures, "God" is impartial, so indeed no reason to favor any of the sides, one way or the other
"God" Being impartial, I see also no logic that certain humans think their morals are the better ones (as in my way is the Highway)
Thinking in such a way would prove that you believe "God" is the "opposite of impartial"

Hindu Scriptures have very clear examples of "God" being impartial
Shiva is a very easy to please "God", creating lots of trouble among many, because He Grants His Boons indiscriminately
(meaning: You do some major tapas, sadhana and Shiva will Grant you your wishes; even if you are the biggest devil on earth)

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yeah all those wars had NO POLITICAL motives. It seems that without religion war is just as prevalent so maybe religion was not the cause of those other wars.
Atheist governments actually seem to be a little more bloodthirsty than the religious ones if you do the numbers. I thought the argument was that without God to mess things up we would reach some sort of human induced golden age of reason.
Is that really what you see as happening?
Btw... the christianity that i follow has not been responsible for a single death in war fare in the last 2000 years. People of my ilk are the ones other christians killed as heritics so i got a beef against them as well. A pox on all their bloodstained houses.

What about all the hatred and such between different branches of the same faith besides between different religions - Protestants and Catholics, Hindus and Muslims, Muslims and Christians, etc. in the past (and still) - the UK had enough of it for long periods without going through all the other nations having such. War can occur for all sorts of reasons but why is there/has been such hatred apparently between religious groups? God not intervening?

 

[Polymath257]

I have never heared of this fellow... but who died and made him the ultimate authority on the supposed reasons of soviet barbarity?

Well, he endured it himself. You really should read him. The Gulag Archipelago is a classic.

 

[Moz]

I have never heared of this fellow... but who died and made him the ultimate authority on the supposed reasons of soviet barbarity?

You have never heard of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and you have the hide to claim you know anything about the soviet system. Incredible.

He is no supposed authority he IS the authority on soviet brutality and if you do not know the gulag archipelago then you know very very little indeed.

You could have just Googled him to see if he was relevant it would of saved the embarrassment of showing that you know nothing about what really went on.

 

[Moz]

That's completely irrelevant, since your argument was that the soviets did what they did because they thought, apparantly, that "no god was watching".

So is this now an acknowledgement that their nonbelief wasn't necessarily relevant to their behaviour or...?
At least you acknowledge, implicitly, that believing a god IS watching, isn't necessarily a deterrent either.

So either way, you just seriously diminished the relevance of being a believer or not, in conctext of exhibiting barbaric behaviour.



Then the reverse is necessarily also true. You can't have it both ways.



What is an "atheist government"?



First, I wonder how the crusades would have gone if the christians had access to the kind of weaponry and technology we had in the 1950s.

Secondly, the governments you are labeling "atheist" here, are really communist and fascist governments
To pretend that these are the same things, is simply brutally dishonest.



Was it? Who claimed that?



What I see happening, is that secular democracy has brought a standard of living and freedom that is unheared of throughout human history.




Cool. The humanism I follow hasn't been responsible for any deaths either.

I think i will just refer you to Augustus post number #46 he did an excellent job laying it out.

 

[Moz]

What about all the hatred and such between different branches of the same faith besides between different religions - Protestants and Catholics, Hindus and Muslims, Muslims and Christians, etc. in the past (and still) - the UK had enough of it for long periods without going through all the other nations having such. War can occur for all sorts of reasons but why is there/has been such hatred apparently between religious groups? God not intervening?

Well human hatred is a tough nut to crack it seems.

different branches of the same faith besides between different religions - Protestants and Catholics, Hindus and Muslims, Muslims and Christians,
I know of very few expressions of religious violence that were specifically about religion without political, class and ethnic entanglements fueling the carnage.
.................................................

the UK had enough of it for long periods without going through all the other nations having such
Were the Cavaliers and the round heads really religious fighters or was is a class struggle?
Were the French and Spanish wars really over religion or over Geopolitical hegemony?
..................................................

War can occur for all sorts of reasons but why is there/has been such hatred apparently between religious groups?

This is why....INTERVIEW WITH HERMANN GOERING AT NUREMBERG, APRIL 18, 1946, BY GUSTAVE GILBERT

INTERVIEWER: We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war, neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, (Goering replies) but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." (Italics mine)

Nothing new under the sun, indeed !

Goring was pointing out that the state has many levers to pull when motivating its people for war. Religion has been one of the most effective tools in that box.

 

[Moz]

Ah, he did not live to see the Caliphate.

Hi
I don't think the caliphate compares even a little to the systemic violence unleashed by the collective atheist philosophy in full power. Mao, Stalin, Polpot set up systemic slaughter of millions upon millions of their own people in the drive for their utopia.

 

[danieldemol]

Solzhenitsyn was an eyewitness to the worst that humanity has ever done.

But was he a witness to the best societies ever created? Such as Japan, Sweden, Norway, Australia?

His insights into what it takes to turn men into the sort of people who can do what was done in the Soviet Union as probably the most relevant source on the malevolence and depravity of mankind that was produced during the 20th century.

We are in the 21st century, here Russia is no longer Communist but still suppresses the rights of its citizens more so than Japan, Sweden, Norway, Australia

His conclusion was that the people who did those things did them because they thought that their was no God watching them. Without God all things are permissible,.

If his conclusion were universally true we would find Japan to be a lawless place, it Is quite lawful.

A reactionary! Dude you should be slapped for such an unthinking comment.

So violence is your answer to a reasoned argument

Dead set comrade your ideology is showing. Do you really know anything but a thumbnail of the horrors of collectivism?

I’m no communist, I’m a Monotheist. Do you really know of the benefits of living in a secular country where the poor are given some degree of alleviation of their suffering through a progressive taxation system?

Solzhenitsyn would become a supporter of the Eastern Orthodox Church, do you blindly follow him in all his conclusions?

 

[Shad]

But was he a witness to the best societies ever created? Such as Japan, Sweden, Norway, Australia?

Japan has citizenship laws most people would reject if not call outright backwards. I do not think Japan is the same type of example as the other nations listed.

 

[Moz]

But was he a witness to the best societies ever created? Such as Japan, Sweden, Norway, Australia?


We are in the 21st century, here Russia is no longer Communist but still suppresses the rights of its citizens more so than Japan, Sweden, Norway, Australia


If his conclusion were universally true we would find Japan to be a lawless place, it Is quite lawful.


So violence is your answer to a reasoned argument


I’m no communist, I’m a Monotheist. Do you really know of the benefits of living in a secular country where the poor are given some degree of alleviation of their suffering through a progressive taxation system?

Solzhenitsyn would become a supporter of the Eastern Orthodox Church, do you blindly follow him in all his conclusions?

Ok.... for the sake of argument postulate a mental exercise and imagine a severe economic reverse of fortune for the west. Things are pretty easy to mitigate when you print trillions of dollars worth of bad money and dare the system to call you on it.... but nothing is free and a consolidation will come..... how will your secular morals and rights hold up then do you think?

Oh also........ that you would equate my comment that you deserve to be slapped for what you said with actual violence is as good an example as you can get of the false moral outrage that typifies.your seeming type. It is an idiom of speech meant to convey the gravity of the point in a short and succinct manner is all.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Japan has citizenship laws most people would reject if not call outright backwards. I do not think Japan is the same type of example as the other nations listed.

How do they compare with citizenship laws in Middle-East?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well human hatred is a tough nut to crack it seems.

different branches of the same faith besides between different religions - Protestants and Catholics, Hindus and Muslims, Muslims and Christians,
I know of very few expressions of religious violence that were specifically about religion without political, class and ethnic entanglements fueling the carnage.
.................................................

the UK had enough of it for long periods without going through all the other nations having such
Were the Cavaliers and the round heads really religious fighters or was is a class struggle?
Were the French and Spanish wars really over religion or over Geopolitical hegemony?
..................................................

War can occur for all sorts of reasons but why is there/has been such hatred apparently between religious groups?

This is why....INTERVIEW WITH HERMANN GOERING AT NUREMBERG, APRIL 18, 1946, BY GUSTAVE GILBERT

INTERVIEWER: We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war, neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, (Goering replies) but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." (Italics mine)

Nothing new under the sun, indeed !

Goring was pointing out that the state has many levers to pull when motivating its people for war. Religion has been one of the most effective tools in that box.

We've had enough banter on these forums about whether religions have or have not been instrumental in so many conflicts such that I will leave it here. How anyone can just shrug off religious conflicts and blame it all elsewhere is beyond me.