The argument that God provides a basis for objective moral values is bad

[viole]

All of the contentions/reasons for keeping women in the home are false and based off ignorance. I personally know from experience that men can get things done around the house just as well when they put their mind to it. But, more importantly, allowing women to stay in the home is not even an option anymore. In most circumstances, both parents have to work in order to provide for their children. If we are to recognize this truth without allowing women in positions of power, it would seem to be immoral/unjust.

Well, yes I agree, obviously. But only emotionally, not rationally.

And "seem" immoral does not entail that it is immoral. Absolute morality should not "seem" such. For starters, 2+2 does not "seem" to be 4. It is 4.

My position is that there is not such a thing as objective or absolute morality that trascends our biology and culture. i cannot possibly say that our time traveller is wrong, at least not as easily as I can show him that 2+2=4. And as long as I can't, I cannot be sure that he is, indeed, wrong. Even if the word "wrong" made sense when applied to moral statements.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Well, yes I agree, obviously. But only emotionally, not rationally.

And "seem" immoral does not entail that it is immoral. Absolute morality should not "seem" such. For starters, 2+2 does not "seem" to be 4. It is 4.

My position is that there is not such a thing as objective or absolute morality that trascends our biology and culture. i cannot possibly say that our time traveller is wrong, at least not as easily as I can show him that 2+2=4. And as long as I can't, I cannot be sure that he is, indeed, wrong. Even if the word "wrong" made sense when applied to moral statements.

Ciao

- viole

Maybe that's all you need. I don't think that we understand absolute or objective morality yet, but, assuming that it does exist, I do wholeheartedly believe that we are closer. There is evidence to show this, but it is never going to be "proven" in the way that a mathematical equation (a hypothetical) can, purely through logic. But, that seems to be beside the point.

 

[viole]

Maybe that's all you need. I don't think that we understand absolute or objective morality yet, but, assuming that it does exist, I do wholeheartedly believe that we are closer. There is evidence to show this, but it is never going to be "proven" in the way that a mathematical equation (a hypothetical) can, purely through logic. But, that seems to be beside the point.

Evidence would be enough. I will suspend my mathematical bias for a second.

But of course you need to first define what absolute morality is before you can show evidence that we are approaching it.

The challenge is to do that without begging the question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Evidence would be enough. I will suspend my mathematical bias for a second.

But of course you need to first define what absolute morality is before you can show evidence that we are approaching it.

The challenge is to do that without begging the question.

Ciao

- viole

I would not attempt to prove that we are getting closer to some kind of absolute morality or that an absolute actually exists. I would merely prove that modern morals are superior to those of the past, as we've had lots of time to figure things out and progress. I don''t think that any kind of objective morality is necessary for a comparison of the two sets of morals, assuming that we are alright with never having certainty. But, certainty is often an impossibility.

 

[viole]

I would not attempt to prove that we are getting closer to some kind of absolute morality or that an absolute actually exists. I would merely prove that modern morals are superior to those of the past, as we've had lots of time to figure things out and progress. I don''t think that any kind of objective morality is necessary for a comparison of the two sets of morals, assuming that we are alright with never having certainty. But, certainty is often an impossibility.

Very well, then my point becomes:

Our morality today would have been useless, or even detrimental, at the time of our time traveller. Its application at the wrong time, might have caused our extinction.

If that is the case, how can we say that it was worse? It was just the best they could do at that time to survive.

By the way, i strongly believe that absolute morality cannot possibly exist. No matter how you define it. I actually hold the view that absolute morality is like a perfect immune system. It can never become perfect, for any improvement requires the existence of unknown pathogens.

So, no progress without a necessary evil that tries to exploit it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Goblin]

I've been watching a lot of religious debates recently, and often times people like William Lane Craig and Frank Turek will argue that without God there are no moral "oughts"; they claim that objective moral values do not exist without God because death is final and everyone ends up in the same place. They assume that without God you can't say whether anything is right or wrong--its just particles in motion.

But this argument is awful for several reasons. For starters, this argument pretends that people aren't choosing a morality and that it is absolutely determined by what Christopher Hitchens would call a celestial dictatorship. But that just depends on your society, culture, interpretation, mood, etc. You select the God and interpretation that aligns with your moral values and so its really no different than an atheist selecting their moral values to work best in society. So you can't say whether anything is right or wrong either because you would have an entirely different morality in bronze age Palestine, or if you grew up in North Korea. If morality is relative anyways, then the concept of moral oughts are ultimately fallacious; its all a matter of perspective and interpretation regardless if you believe or dont which really means the difference is moot.

As WLC would ask, "How do you know rape is wrong?"

I would say its wrong because a society of empowered, free women is much more effective and pleasant, and rape is a sinister attack on that. WLC would reply, but how do you know that's wrong? You're just responding to societal pressures and laws as well as evolutionary changes. I would then rebuttal him by saying that he's also just responding to social pressures because if you lived in bronze age Palestine then its very possible you would think rape is okay since you'd fallaciously believe women are inferior. Morality is relative whether you believe in religion or not in conclusion, and therefore means objective morality doesn't exist. All that exists is a secular, utilitarian analysis of society that tells us how to create the most effective, pleasant society as possible. Most religious people adopt secular standards anyways because you certainly wouldn't want to take morals from Leviticus, or the old testament, and or exodus.

without some sort of decider God there is no right or wrong...
morals are subjective to culture.
many cultures accepted rape, despite how detestable it seems to us.
for example to get a wife, a greek spartan would be told to rape a woman, if she could not fight him off, she was not strong enough to contest his claim on her & is now his wife.

 

[serp777]

It was a hypothetical scenario, mate. Not a Scientific fact. If Science says tomorrow, by all the measurements we take, people with Cerebral Palsy are better off being euthanized would it be objective moral or not to do so? What other qualifiers would one need if you're only working off science? If there are then Science, whilst a good quantifier of ethics, only goes so far. (For the record I am pro euthanasia for those suffering.)

Well i don't believe there are objective moral values. So no i don't think it would be moral or immoral.

And im not suggesting purely working off of science--science provides a back end for a utilitarian framework.

There are certain scientific values though that i think should be incorporated because they appear to work well for society: honesty, integrity, peer review, cooperation, critical thinking, not afraid of offense or criticism, etc.

 

[leibowde84]

Very well, then my point becomes:

Our morality today would have been useless, or even detrimental, at the time of our time traveller. Its application at the wrong time, might have caused our extinction.

If that is the case, how can we say that it was worse? It was just the best they could do at that time to survive.

By the way, i strongly believe that absolute morality cannot possibly exist. No matter how you define it. I actually hold the view that absolute morality is like a perfect immune system. It can never become perfect, for any improvement requires the existence of unknown pathogens.

So, no progress without a necessary evil that tries to exploit it.

Ciao

- viole

First off, I love your point about the impossibility of perfection and your analogy was spot on.

Second, why do you think that stages of morality only work at their given time period? I agree that if only a few men and women tried to change morality, they would be considered outcasts. But, if the entire morality of a generation changes (hypothetical of course), what would stop them from achieving this?

 

[leibowde84]

without some sort of decider God there is no right or wrong...
morals are subjective to culture.
many cultures accepted rape, despite how detestable it seems to us.
for example to get a wife, a greek spartan would be told to rape a woman, if she could not fight him off, she was not strong enough to contest his claim on her & is now his wife.

It seems that morality in general (globally average) has improved quite a bit since then. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Cephus]

Sure, our "moral reasoning," or "morality" to the layman.

All of which is completely subjective.

 

[serp777]

Lying is indeed objectively wrong, mainly because it hurts the so badly necessary weave of mutual trust and mutual understanding that any functional society needs.

The exceptions are much, much lesser than legend would have it. It is a very interesting subject matter, this of how come people perceive lying as of such questionable morality when it is by nature so deeply immoral.


Adultery must be carefully defined. If it means betrayal of a promise of exclusivity, then of course it objectively wrong as well. As a matter of fact, it is a very specific form of lying.

Hmm while I mostly agree that Lying is wrong because it hurts society, saying it is objectively wrong really depends on subjective views and interpretation regardless of who's asked. I don't think objective moral values exist period because everything depends on interpretation and perspective. Suppose someone is born without the empathic center of their brain--why would lying be wrong for them? Or suppose someone has religious beliefs which entail lying for whatever reasoning? They would believe that they are completely moral and ethical. The problem is that we have no discernible moral authority. All we can really ask is what makes society better? So generally lying is bad because it makes society worse, but it isn't inherently, or objectively wrong because a functioning society isn't inherently good or evil.

There are instances where lying could be justified too: like a spy working in Iran to discover the location of nuclear fuel enrichment centers.

Or suppose a government is dealing with an imminent natural disaster and needs to population to keep working normally so that its easiest to avoid the supposed disaster. It may be sensible to lie to the population to prevent fear and rioting from becoming common place, thus disrupting efforts to prevent the disaster.

 

[Cephus]

It all comes down to whether you see helping the society to remain functional as a good thing, I suppose.

And that is a subjective view, not an objective one.

 

[Cephus]

Maybe we're operating under different ideas of what subjectivity means. I mean that they're based on opinion, not somehow embedded in fact.

Same as a language is passed on with gradual changes. However, a tree is not intrinsically called a 'tree', or an 'arbre', or a 'coeden'.

I posted definitions of objectivity and subjectivity and as soon as I did that, people stopped talking to me. Imagine that.

 

[serp777]

It seems that morality in general (globally average) has improved quite a bit since then. Wouldn't you agree?

Not according to the bible or religion in general. That all depends on interpretation. Ask the suicide bombing community or the genital mutilation community which morals are correct? We simply think our moral standards are objectively good because that is secular what society has instilled in us. Our morality would be entirely different in bronze age palestine. So really who is to say that today's morals are good or bad? I would agree that our morals are better for an efficient society in terms of utilitarianism, but not in the traditional concept of morality.

 

[Ouroboros]

It seems that morality in general (globally average) has improved quite a bit since then. Wouldn't you agree?

Especially in West because of how we've changed our values. Our views on personal integrity, personal rights, property rights, protection, safety, security, pursuit of happiness, all of that overrides the religious mandates and religious pursuits. The countries with the biggest problems of human rights are the countries where religious belief and pursuit of pleasing God is put first, over any personal rights. In those countries, it seems that if a woman is raped, it's because Satan tempted the man through her, so she's at fault. So they've turned the tables of who's the victim and the religious rights override any personal protection. The big question is really, what values are the ones that would benefit society and the majority of people the most? From that, we can derive the best morals.

 

[leibowde84]

All of which is completely subjective.

Agreed, but not necessarily to the individual. The standard is enforced by society as a whole. Certain things are considered immoral by the community, and the community gives itself authority to enforce these morals through various tools.

 

[Cephus]

I would not attempt to prove that we are getting closer to some kind of absolute morality or that an absolute actually exists. I would merely prove that modern morals are superior to those of the past, as we've had lots of time to figure things out and progress. I don''t think that any kind of objective morality is necessary for a comparison of the two sets of morals, assuming that we are alright with never having certainty. But, certainty is often an impossibility.

Demonstrate they are "superior" without applying your own biases and opinions. You think they are superior because they are the ones you are used to. People in the past would likewise think their morals were superior because that's what they are used to. They'd likely think theirs were superior to ours, if they had the opportunity to make a comparison.

 

[serp777]

without some sort of decider God there is no right or wrong...
morals are subjective to culture.
many cultures accepted rape, despite how detestable it seems to us.
for example to get a wife, a greek spartan would be told to rape a woman, if she could not fight him off, she was not strong enough to contest his claim on her & is now his wife.

With a decider God there is no right or wrong either. it just depends on your interpretation and subjective whim which morals/God you pick and choose. So either way its going to be subjective because nobody has special knowledge from God containing an unambiguous moral doctrine. The logic is essentially--all humans aren't moral authorities, and humans make decisions on morals and Gods, so therefore those decisions don't imply a justified decider God.

however, we can say our morals are more efficient because empowered, free women make society more productive according to empirical data.

 

[viole]

First off, I love your point about the impossibility of perfection and your analogy was spot on.

Second, why do you think that stages of morality only work at their given time period? I agree that if only a few men and women tried to change morality, they would be considered outcasts. But, if the entire morality of a generation changes (hypothetical of course), what would stop them from achieving this?

What would stop them?

I would say lack of progress in other not morally related issues. For instance, contact with other people, economical progress, technological progress, the Internet, TV, whatever.

Suppose that a nuclear war kills everybody except people in, say, Switzerland. Do you think that their current morality will improve from there?

i am not sure.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Not according to the bible or religion in general. That all depends on interpretation. Ask the suicide bombing community or the genital mutilation community which morals are correct? We simply think our moral standards are objectively good because that is secular what society has instilled in us. Our morality would be entirely different in bronze age palestine. So really who is to say that today's morals are good or bad? I would agree that our morals are better for an efficient society in terms of utilitarianism, but not in the traditional concept of morality.

I'm not concerned with what you or anyone else claims to be "the traditional concept of morality." And, I understand that morality is subjective, as absolute morality doesn't seem to exist in reality. I agree with your point that "our morals are bettter for an efficient society in terms of utilitarianism," and, I would contend, that is all that matters for this discussion.