Why do some people think the moral argument is a good one?

[serp777]

I see the moral argument as one of the weakest and most common arguments used to justify theism. There are several potent critiques that are never addressed sufficiently:

1. Presupposing a God doesn't necessarily mean the God is a moral God. The God may be neutral, evil, have characteristics of good, bad, and evil, or be beyond the entire concept of morality. Furthermore, God might not care about morality, or God himself may grapple with moral problems just like humans do and thus we be made in his image in that sense. There is know way we can unambiguously prove the moral stance of God with our current human capacities.

2. Moral relativism is perfectly reasonable and not having objective morals doesn't mean we should suddenly start killing people, for instance. Basing morality on humanism, rationality, and utilitarianism seems to make for a relatively nice and comfortable society. The theist might ask why a nice and comfortable society is good--the answer is not that its good, its that we like it and the most humans possible are happy in this configuration. Humans inherently do things that make them happy and comfortable because that's simply how most of us want to live. It is selfish, but so what? We can judge those that go against this morality as acting against the interest of people's happiness. Nonetheless its still just an opinion, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean morals are suddenly objective.

Regardless, you make assumptions either way--that God exists and God is a perfectly moral being who cares about human morality, or that secular humanism and utilitarianism are the best ways to go about creating the society where most people are happy and that we should strive towards the most happiness and comfort. Furthermore, most people would be very guilt ridden if they were evil as defined by their moral compass, and therefore that motivation goes a long way to make us concerned about morality without even considering objective morals.

3. Many versions of Gods are simply willing to give redemption regardless of moral deeds thus making objective morality a moot concept in those cases.

4. Nobody can know what is objectively moral or not--even if there are objective morals out there, you can't determine them, which means that everything is basically subjective anyways as far is everyone is concerned. Also, if God cares about our morality and there are objective morals, you would think God would make these objective morals unambiguous and known to everyone. Any reasonable God could not hold us to standards that we did not know.

5. The existence of a moral God doesn't mean there are objective morals. Its a non sequitur to go from moral God to there are objective morals. That's just another assumption.

 

[Altfish]

It also falls down when you study the number of people that are in gaol, atheists make up a relatively smaller proportion.
Similarly the Scandinavian countries and the likes of Japan which are some of the least religious areas have the least amounts of crime.

 

[bobhikes]

I see the moral argument as one of the weakest and most common arguments used to justify theism. There are several potent critiques that are never addressed sufficiently:

True but fortunately its not the only argument for God and as you pointed out the some of the others are stronger.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I see the moral argument as one of the weakest and most common arguments used to justify theism. There are several potent critiques that are never addressed sufficiently:

You choose to address it, because you feel it is the weakest? Its a good post, but I want to respond to your points anyway. Before you hit the trail lets flip your backpack upside down, shake it, and see if anything falls out.

1. Presupposing a God doesn't necessarily mean the God is a moral God. The God may be neutral, evil, have characteristics of good, bad, and evil, or be beyond the entire concept of morality. Furthermore, God might not care about morality, or God himself may grapple with moral problems just like humans do and thus we be made in his image in that sense. There is know way we can unambiguously prove the moral stance of God with our current human capacities.

There are different views of God. I think you are addressing the worst one. It is almost although not quite a straw man kind of argument to choose the worst version of God and put it up for inspection. You are only preaching to folks who agree with you already about God.

2. Moral relativism is perfectly reasonable and not having objective morals doesn't mean we should suddenly start killing people, for instance. Basing morality on humanism, rationality, and utilitarianism seems to make for a relatively nice and comfortable society. The theist might ask why a nice and comfortable society is good--the answer is not that its good, its that we like it and the most humans possible are happy in this configuration. Humans inherently do things that make them happy and comfortable because that's simply how most of us want to live. It is selfish, but so what? We can judge those that go against this morality as acting against the interest of people's happiness. Nonetheless its still just an opinion, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean morals are suddenly objective.

I don't entirely disagree. Relativism is a philosophical idea representing one of two extremes and the problem of understanding how to be moral. You cannot be absolutely relatively moral, but you cannot use the same moral standards in all situations. Therefore your question can be stated "How can absolute morality be absolutely right for all occasions, and therefore how can God (presumably an absolute moral standard) exist?"

Regardless, you make assumptions either way--that God exists and God is a perfectly moral being who cares about human morality, or that secular humanism and utilitarianism are the best ways to go about creating the society where most people are happy and that we should strive towards the most happiness and comfort. Furthermore, most people would be very guilt ridden if they were evil as defined by their moral compass, and therefore that motivation goes a long way to make us concerned about morality without even considering objective morals.

What you have here is a theological argument about what sort of nature God must have rather than an argument that there cannot be God. Very true if God is your reason to be moral. Not true if you choose to believe in God for moral reasons. So I think you are right about cultish view of God, where there is no choice and whatever God does is good just because God defines good. It does not debunk God but rather improves God.

3. Many versions of Gods are simply willing to give redemption regardless of moral deeds thus making objective morality a moot concept in those cases.

The existence of people who think this way is a small problem for theist apologists. It kind of makes everybody look bad, but no one has to claim responsibility for it if they don't subscribe to it.

4. Nobody can know what is objectively moral or not--even if there are objective morals out there, you can't determine them, which means that everything is basically subjective anyways as far is everyone is concerned. Also, if God cares about our morality and there are objective morals, you would think God would make these objective morals unambiguous and known to everyone. Any reasonable God could not hold us to standards that we did not know.

No, not 'Basically subjective' -- more like fuzzy around the edges or slightly blurry. There are sometimes choices which seem uncertain. This is consistent with many theist platforms which go for overall morality without tending towards extremes. Its when society seems chaotic that rules appear, and then later when rules collide with other rules people have to refine or change the rules.

5. The existence of a moral God doesn't mean there are objective morals. Its a non sequitur to go from moral God to there are objective morals. That's just another assumption.

True! Its another argument about the nature of God rather than debunking God.

 

[LuisDantas]

The moral arguments are, indeed, rather weak. Almost unworthy of refutal.

Far more interesting than the arguments themselves is the fact they are perceived by some as worth laying down. That deserves some study and an attempt at an explanation.

At first glance, that shows that many people are lacking on moral education, to the point that they fear or perhaps sincerely believe that a divine authority is necessary for moral to exist.

 

[McBell]

The moral arguments are, indeed, rather weak. Almost unworthy of refutal.

Far more interesting than the arguments themselves is the fact they are perceived by some as worth laying down. That deserves some study and an attempt at an explanation.

At first glance, that shows that many people are lacking on moral education, to the point that they fear or perhaps sincerely believe that a divine authority is necessary for moral to exist.

Seems to me it more shows a lack of basic understanding of what morals entail.

 

[Quintessence]

I see the moral argument as one of the weakest and most common arguments used to justify theism.

Don't you mean "... arguments used to justify certain monotheistic (Christian) varieties of theism?" As far as I'm aware, it is the Christians who came up with the idea that morality comes from their god. This was pretty foreign to the Paganisms that preceded them, and is still foreign to many other theistic religions. Just wanted to make sure that was clarified, because the rest of my responses are going to be from the perspective of "wait a sec... not all theism is classical monotheism, folks." Much of the rest of what you outline doesn't apply to theism as a whole, but only particular forms of it. And being someone who doesn't adhere to the classical monotheism you seem to have a gripe with, I don't have much else to add. It doesn't make sense to me either. But I would say that the classical monotheists can and have addressed those points. Whether or not you find those explanations satisfactory is more on the listener than the speaker.

 

[metis]

I do believe either there is morality or there's not a morality, and with the latter, then logically anything goes. So, the question should more focus on what is our source for morality, assuming most of us have the feeling that there should be at least something that we should be doing or not doing? And just to be clear, I do not believe that the source need be of divine origin.

 

[McBell]

I do believe either there is morality or there's not a morality, and with the latter, then logically anything goes. So, the question should more focus on what is our source for morality, assuming most of us have the feeling that there should be at least something that we should be doing or not doing? And just to be clear, I do not believe that the source need be of divine origin.

wait...
What do you define morality as?

 

[LuisDantas]

Seems to me it more shows a lack of basic understanding of what morals entail.

I thought I said as much... but I guess it did not come across all that clearly.

 

[McBell]

I thought I said as much... but I guess it did not come across all that clearly.

lol
You did.
I was just being ornery.

 

[metis]

wait...
What do you define morality as?

What a person feels is right versus wrong, especially in conjunction with the treatment of other people, plus other possible applications. Probably every person in the world has "morality" of one type or another, so it's really more of exactly what is their morality and what is it being based on?

 

[McBell]

What a person feels is right versus wrong, especially in conjunction with the treatment of other people, plus other possible applications. Probably every person in the world has "morality" of one type or another, so it's really more of exactly what is their morality and what is it being based on?

why would what someones morality is based on be important?
Or even relevant?

 

[metis]

why would what someones morality is based on be important?
Or even relevant?

Probably because each of us have reasons why we feel A is moral but B is not, and there's often multiple factors as to why someone feels the way they do. Even if a person just flipped a coin to determine right from wrong, that still is a paradigm that they're working from that reflects their own moral compass.

 

[David T]

Are you proposing that your moral compass and philosophy is a superior moral compass? If you say no, i most certainly see in your writing contradictions to that. if you say yes, then how are you not exactly like what you are complaining about?

 

[serp777]

Are you proposing that your moral compass and philosophy is a superior moral compass? If you say no, i most certainly see in your writing contradictions to that. if you say yes, then how are you not exactly like what you are complaining about?

I don't know whether my moral compass or philosophy is superior. I'm not even sure how superior would be defined in terms of morality. Also superior compared to what? You're being much too vague. if you're saying superior with respect to making the most people comfortable, then there is actual evidence we can use to compare secular humanist societies vs other societies and draw some introductory conclusions. But regardless Its an opinion, and you're stuck in the exact same dilemma even with God.

 

[serp777]

Don't you mean "... arguments used to justify certain monotheistic (Christian) varieties of theism?" As far as I'm aware, it is the Christians who came up with the idea that morality comes from their god. This was pretty foreign to the Paganisms that preceded them, and is still foreign to many other theistic religions. Just wanted to make sure that was clarified, because the rest of my responses are going to be from the perspective of "wait a sec... not all theism is classical monotheism, folks." Much of the rest of what you outline doesn't apply to theism as a whole, but only particular forms of it. And being someone who doesn't adhere to the classical monotheism you seem to have a gripe with, I don't have much else to add. It doesn't make sense to me either. But I would say that the classical monotheists can and have addressed those points. Whether or not you find those explanations satisfactory is more on the listener than the speaker.

I didn't say that all religions use this argument, I merely said that this argument is commonly used to justify theism, which is certainly true and doesn't suggest that all religions use this argument.

But I would say that the classical monotheists can and have addressed those points.

Perhaps you can provide an example? I've never heard of someone being able to, for instance, show how they know God is a moral being and enforces and cares about objective morality.

 

[serp777]

I do believe either there is morality or there's not a morality, and with the latter, then logically anything goes. So, the question should more focus on what is our source for morality, assuming most of us have the feeling that there should be at least something that we should be doing or not doing? And just to be clear, I do not believe that the source need be of divine origin.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Couldn't there be a quasi morality where there are general morals imposed by God, but he also accepts that certain edge cases like stealing to feed your family is acceptable? Perhaps God has a case by case basis for morality. So some partially objective morals that can be broken under the right circumstances.

Also we know at least one source--ourselves and our society and the interactions between everybody. In other words, a social contract is one source of morals but it is subject to a variety of factors.

 

[serp777]

You choose to address it, because you feel it is the weakest? Its a good post, but I want to respond to your points anyway. Before you hit the trail lets flip your backpack upside down, shake it, and see if anything falls out.

There are different views of God. I think you are addressing the worst one. It is almost although not quite a straw man kind of argument to choose the worst version of God and put it up for inspection. You are only preaching to folks who agree with you already about God.

I don't entirely disagree. Relativism is a philosophical idea representing one of two extremes and the problem of understanding how to be moral. You cannot be absolutely relatively moral, but you cannot use the same moral standards in all situations. Therefore your question can be stated "How can absolute morality be absolutely right for all occasions, and therefore how can God (presumably an absolute moral standard) exist?"

What you have here is a theological argument about what sort of nature God must have rather than an argument that there cannot be God. Very true if God is your reason to be moral. Not true if you choose to believe in God for moral reasons. So I think you are right about cultish view of God, where there is no choice and whatever God does is good just because God defines good. It does not debunk God but rather improves God.

The existence of people who think this way is a small problem for theist apologists. It kind of makes everybody look bad, but no one has to claim responsibility for it if they don't subscribe to it.

No, not 'Basically subjective' -- more like fuzzy around the edges or slightly blurry. There are sometimes choices which seem uncertain. This is consistent with many theist platforms which go for overall morality without tending towards extremes. Its when society seems chaotic that rules appear, and then later when rules collide with other rules people have to refine or change the rules.

True! Its another argument about the nature of God rather than debunking God.

You choose to address it, because you feel it is the weakest? Its a good post, but I want to respond to your points anyway. Before you hit the trail lets flip your backpack upside down, shake it, and see if anything falls out.

Thank you. But i actually chose to address this argument because it is common and my aim is to demonstrate its weakness.

There are different views of God. I think you are addressing the worst one. It is almost although not quite a straw man kind of argument to choose the worst version of God and put it up for inspection. You are only preaching to folks who agree with you already about God.

The worst one was only one of the options I put forward; I gave a list of a diverse range of different possible Gods. A perfectly moral God is only one such God and I don't make assumptions about the nature of God. So far we have no basis to assume one version of God over another with respect to morality. A God that is indifferent towards morality seems reasonable and consistent with reality if you accept the existence of God. In other words I think the deist has at least the same justified belief as any religious person whom believes God is perfectly good and imposes objective morals.

I don't entirely disagree. Relativism is a philosophical idea representing one of two extremes and the problem of understanding how to be moral. You cannot be absolutely relatively moral, but you cannot use the same moral standards in all situations.

Relativism is the acknowledgement that morality is fluid, dynamic, and a function of numerous different factors that often produce radically different moral outcomes and decisions. What do you mean by "be absolutely relatively moral"? That sounds a lot like the infinite nothingness or the brightest blackness. They are mutally exclusive terms. Perhaps you can define what absolutely relatively moral is?

What you have here is a theological argument about what sort of nature God must have rather than an argument that there cannot be God. Very true if God is your reason to be moral. Not true if you choose to believe in God for moral reasons. So I think you are right about cultish view of God, where there is no choice and whatever God does is good just because God defines good. It does not debunk God but rather improves God.

But i also included in my list the deistic God who is beyond the entire concept of morality or whom is completely indifferent. I fail to see how that qualifies as a cultish view of God. But furthermore, a cultish view doesn't disprove the notion that a cultish kind of God is possible if you postulate the existence of God, which means that we don't actually know if a cultish morality is objective or not.

No, not 'Basically subjective' -- more like fuzzy around the edges or slightly blurry. There are sometimes choices which seem uncertain. This is consistent with many theist platforms which go for overall morality without tending towards extremes. Its when society seems chaotic that rules appear, and then later when rules collide with other rules people have to refine or change the rules.

The question is how you determine that your moral foundations are consistent with an actual objective morality. Until you get some evidence or direct confirmation of objective morals somehow, then there's no reason to assume that your morals are in fact objective. The only thing you do know is that you came to a subjective conclusion about morality and you don't know if its objective--therefore, you only know that you subjectively came to a conclusion--subjective for all you know.

True! Its another argument about the nature of God rather than debunking God.

The thing is the nature of God is actually used to prove God exists according to some theists. They suggest that God is perfectly good and we all know objective morality, but since we can't have objective morals without God, therefore God must exist. There are circular components in that logic, but people like William Lane Craig actually makes this argument.

 

[Blackdog22]

I see the moral argument as one of the weakest and most common arguments used to justify theism. There are several potent critiques that are never addressed sufficiently:

1. Presupposing a God doesn't necessarily mean the God is a moral God. The God may be neutral, evil, have characteristics of good, bad, and evil, or be beyond the entire concept of morality. Furthermore, God might not care about morality, or God himself may grapple with moral problems just like humans do and thus we be made in his image in that sense. There is know way we can unambiguously prove the moral stance of God with our current human capacities.

2. Moral relativism is perfectly reasonable and not having objective morals doesn't mean we should suddenly start killing people, for instance. Basing morality on humanism, rationality, and utilitarianism seems to make for a relatively nice and comfortable society. The theist might ask why a nice and comfortable society is good--the answer is not that its good, its that we like it and the most humans possible are happy in this configuration. Humans inherently do things that make them happy and comfortable because that's simply how most of us want to live. It is selfish, but so what? We can judge those that go against this morality as acting against the interest of people's happiness. Nonetheless its still just an opinion, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean morals are suddenly objective.

Regardless, you make assumptions either way--that God exists and God is a perfectly moral being who cares about human morality, or that secular humanism and utilitarianism are the best ways to go about creating the society where most people are happy and that we should strive towards the most happiness and comfort. Furthermore, most people would be very guilt ridden if they were evil as defined by their moral compass, and therefore that motivation goes a long way to make us concerned about morality without even considering objective morals.

3. Many versions of Gods are simply willing to give redemption regardless of moral deeds thus making objective morality a moot concept in those cases.

4. Nobody can know what is objectively moral or not--even if there are objective morals out there, you can't determine them, which means that everything is basically subjective anyways as far is everyone is concerned. Also, if God cares about our morality and there are objective morals, you would think God would make these objective morals unambiguous and known to everyone. Any reasonable God could not hold us to standards that we did not know.

5. The existence of a moral God doesn't mean there are objective morals. Its a non sequitur to go from moral God to there are objective morals. That's just another assumption.

To add to this Gods morals aren't objective either, even if we assume he exists. The Old Testament to the New Testament shows a God clearly changing his mind. God changed his mind after the flood even during the old testament. God felt regret many times. His morality and what he considers right and wrong fluctuates like a child figuring life out for the first time, nothing about his character or actions tells us he is objectively moral. I am not even sure how Christians quote such a thing with a straight face assuming they have actually read their own book (quite a problem here in the US).