Why Morality cannot come from God

[Muffled]

There is a serious logical problem with theistic objective morality. Suppose one states that "God is good." There are only two possibilities implied by this statement. Either the person stating that "God is good" is appealing to "good" as a characteristic outside of God, and thus, the person is effectively asserting that a higher standard of morality exists outside of God, and is judging God by that standard. Thus, God is not the arbiter of morals, rather, his actions are being evaluated as being moral based on a moral standard outside of him. If, on the other hand (and this is the only other possibility), the person stating "God is good" means that "moral goodness" is defined by God's actions, then God is an entirely amoral being. Since "Good" is defined by his actions, then by definition, everything he does must be good, and, therefore, he can do anything, and it will always be good, thus he has no choice between right and wrong, and, hence, he is amoral. In either of the two cases, we have a serious logical problem for theists who state that morality comes from God.

I believe goodness is defined by God which does not make Him immoral since anything forbidden by Him, He would not do as well. This is different from a human who thinks everything he does is good since no human is.

 

[ArtieE]

For X to have objective existence is for X to exist independently of the concept of X in any brain. And yes, for me those things are real which have objective existence, and no other things. However it's not clear to me that everyone agrees.

The concept of X objectively exists in my brain even though it doesn't exist anywhere else.

It's true that arithmetic and its procedures arise out of human experience of reality, and have been constantly adjusted so as to conform with that. But this depends on human convenience and the way humans see the world. For there to be two sheep, you need a human to define the relevant physical region (let's call it the 'field') and the thing to be counted (let's call it the 'topic' and let's say 'sheep') and the test for relevance amongst the potential elements of the topic (eg 'all sheep I can see' or 'nearest sheep' or 'black sheep' or 'suitable for slaughter' &c).

Except if all humans suddenly disappeared there would still be two organisms in the field. There just wouldn't be anybody to call the organisms sheep.

What's an example of a moral rule not influenced by personal feelings? Isn't the whole basis of morality about how the individual relates to others? And from there by extension to how groups relate?

Say you have two communities with 100 people each. In one people help each other and because of that it is a very healthy society producing a lot of offspring with the same helping attitude. In the other society everybody murder each other and produce very few offspring with a murderous attitude. Evolution and natural selection selects for the helpful attitude and against the murderous attitude. Helping people: moral/good/right. Murdering people: immoral/bad/wrong. An automatic result of a natural process.

 

[Muffled]

Human "morality" is man-made, as it is culture sensitive. For example, some societies allow a man to have four wives, while in other societies, it is considered an immoral act.

I believe most cultural things do not have their source in God but certainly God may design laws to reflect flaws in a culture.

 

[Muffled]

I'm going to take a wild guess at this...

Because nobody has proven God's existence?

I believe I have proven it.

 

[suncowiam]

I believe I have proven it.

You believe? Or you actually have proven it?

I believe many things. That doesn't necessarily make then true.

 

[Akivah]

Ends up being a pretty big range of circumstances, from working on a Saturday to being gay to drawing some pictures.

How so?

 

[blü 2]

The concept of X objectively exists in my brain even though it doesn't exist anywhere else.

The concept exists physically / objectively as a brain state. The contents of the concept may or may not exist physically / objectively ie have a real counterpart. As a rough analogy, liken the physical nature of a concept to a sheet of paper and the content of the concept to what's drawn on the paper. If it's a unicorn it doesn't have a real counterpart. If it's my chair, it does.

Except if all humans suddenly disappeared there would still be two organisms in the field. There just wouldn't be anybody to call the organisms sheep.

There wouldn't be anyone who had a concept of an organism, though the sheep have social bonds and particular mammalian bonds between them, so there'd be sheep awareness interpreting what their senses tell them (in sheep terms, which I have difficulty intuiting). That doesn't alter the human view though. Before than can be 'two sheep', some brain must select the field 'this meadow' and the topic 'sheep'.

Say you have two communities with 100 people each. In one people help each other and because of that it is a very healthy society producing a lot of offspring with the same helping attitude. In the other society everybody murder each other and produce very few offspring with a murderous attitude. Evolution and natural selection selects for the helpful attitude and against the murderous attitude. Helping people: moral/good/right. Murdering people: immoral/bad/wrong. An automatic result of a natural process.

Murder and social collapse are objectively neither good nor bad. It's us humans who think them good or bad. For instance, if someone were to kill / assassinate / murder Putin right now, opinion as to badness would be much divided.

 

[serp777]

I believe I have proven it.

It doesn't really matter if you believe you have. Where's your nobel prize and your name written down in history?

 

[serp777]

All of this is a fallacious appeal to things which don't seem to be knowable. People talk about the characteristics of God with such arrogance--like they know anything about God. Its ridiculous really. I mean how do these people know any of it?

 

[ArtieE]

Murder and social collapse are objectively neither good nor bad. It's us humans who think them good or bad. For instance, if someone were to kill / assassinate / murder Putin right now, opinion as to badness would be much divided.

I think you just have to read those two articles I gave you over and over until you understand them and stop using a definition of objective that simply doesn't apply in this context.

 

[blü 2]

I think you just have to read those two articles I gave you over and over until you understand them and stop using a definition of objective that simply doesn't apply in this context.

What is the definition of 'objective' that applies in this context?

 

[qaz]

indeed believers' ethical conduct doesn't rest on an actual , rational sense of morality, but rather the acceptance of a (supposed) auctority which establish rules, being it beyond morality or any possible description which is not included inside the texts of revelation.
believers must just comply with its orders/suggestions. this compliance they call "morality".

 

[ArtieE]

What is the definition of 'objective' that applies in this context?

The one those two articles are using.

 

[blü 2]

The one those two articles are using.

Quote it here.

 

[ArtieE]

indeed believers' ethical conduct doesn't rest on an actual , rational sense of morality, but rather the acceptance of a (supposed) auctority which establish rules, being it beyond morality or any possible description which is not included inside the texts of revelation.
believers must just comply with its orders/suggestions. this compliance they call "morality".

Our morality is grounded in evolution and natural selection and on which behaviors are beneficial or detrimental for the well-being and survival of our society and the people in it, not in our subjective opinions. In that sense it's objective.

 

[ArtieE]

Quote it here.

"morality is not objective in the same way that statements of empirically verifiable facts are objective, yet morality is objective in the ways that matter: moral judgments are not arbitrary; we can have genuine disagreements about moral issues; people can be mistaken in their moral beliefs; and facts about the world are relevant to and inform our moral judgments. In other words, morality is not “subjective” as that term is usually interpreted. Moral judgments are not equivalent to descriptive statements about the world—factual assertions about cars, cats, and cabbages—but neither are they merely expressions of personal preferences"

Then try reading both articles where this is elaborated on in great detail.

 

[qaz]

Our morality is grounded in evolution and natural selection and on which behaviors are beneficial or detrimental for the well-being and survival of our society and the people in it, not in our subjective opinions. In that sense it's objective.

agree. people often confuse "relative" with "casual". morality is no more than a "code" which inform human relationships, like language. language is "relative" but not "subjective" nor "casual". do we need a god in order to establish "objective language"? no.

 

[qaz]

come to think of it, a rational conception of morality is much more universal than a theistic one. infact many societies have many gods, prophets and sacred texts, which make possibile the existence of multiple, and incompatible, and casual moralities. but if we think to morality as a behavioural model whose purpose is to make obliged relationships stable and well accepted by all its members , then we understand that , despite differences in details, morality has always been a cultural declination of "don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you".
so, theistic dogma is not only unnecessary in moral matters , but also detrimental.

 

[blü 2]

"morality is not objective in the same way that statements of empirically verifiable facts are objective, yet morality is objective in the ways that matter: moral judgments are not arbitrary; we can have genuine disagreements about moral issues; people can be mistaken in their moral beliefs; and facts about the world are relevant to and inform our moral judgments. In other words, morality is not “subjective” as that term is usually interpreted. Moral judgments are not equivalent to descriptive statements about the world—factual assertions about cars, cats, and cabbages—but neither are they merely expressions of personal preferences"

Thank you.

I simply disagree.

There's nothing objective about moral opinions as such. To counterphrase it, "morality is not objective as that term is usually interpreted". A thing is moral to me, or to Mill, or to Nietzsche, because I, or Mill, or Nietzsche happen to hold that view / feel it's right. If we argue we'll have to argue by comparing attitudes to related examples, hoping to win by bringing out inconsistencies in the others' views, not because we have anything objective to appeal to.

Certainly the attitudes of debaters on certain moral topics may tend to agree on certain points because of evolution or culture; but no argument is available that evolutionary tendencies are 'right' because evolution or cultural consensus is morally 'right' in any objective sense. Ask any cannibal.

 

[ArtieE]

Thank you.

I simply disagree.

Fair enough. Just as long as you have read both articles thoroughly and understood them.

There's nothing objective about moral opinions as such.

If you have the subjective opinion that something is moral does that make it actually moral? Of course not. So how is what is moral subjective?