Why Morality cannot come from God

[Curious George]

lol If it is only theoretical, as you said, it does not objectively exist.

What? You are confounding the subject. I am not sure whether or not morality objectively exists. I do understand that some claim it does, and it is not an anachronism.

 

[Akivah]

In a world without G-d, there is no obvious difference between good and evil. Reason by itself can't discern the difference. People such as Stalin and Kim Jong-Un reasonably murder thousands of people to advance their causes, they don't see anything wrong with murder. Nature itself doesn't view murder as wrong, as natural selection relies on survival of the fittest with no protection for the weakest. Reason alone does not make humanity humane. It is our society, steeped in Abrahamic traditions for past thousand years, that can render a judgement that murdering people is evil. Only if there is a G-d that forbids murder, does murder become evil. Otherwise its wrongness is only a matter of opinion.

 

[Thief]

In a world without G-d, there is no obvious difference between good and evil. Reason by itself can't discern the difference. People such as Stalin and Kim Jong-Un reasonably murder thousands of people to advance their causes, they don't see anything wrong with murder. Nature itself doesn't view murder as wrong, as natural selection relies on survival of the fittest with no protection for the weakest. Reason alone does not make humanity humane. It is our society, steeped in Abrahamic traditions for past thousand years, that can render a judgement that murdering people is evil. Only if there is a G-d that forbids murder, does murder become evil. Otherwise its wrongness is only a matter of opinion.

reminds me of a Star Trek episode

a life form of will.....killed an entire species
a fit of outrage and revenge for the death of someone he loved

trying to be left alone under his self imposed solitary confinement
that life form attempted several deceptions upon the crew of the star ship

the crew kept returning to the planet as each deception failed

finally found out....he confessed his quilt and grief

the captain made statement....we have no law by which to judge you or your crime

so .....How about Noah and the flood?
How about Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

[12jtartar]

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.

Hubert Farnsworth,
I know that you have thought about this a lots so I cannot take anyone’s word above yours, except Jesus’. Maybe you are right and Jesus is wrong, but since Jesus is the longest living of all creTed people, am afraid I will just take his word for what and who is Good, Matthew 19:16,17, Mark 10:17,18Luke 18:18,19.
Judging by what Jesus said, it would seem that Good is even better than righteous, and only ONE is Good, The Almighty God, whose Personal, Proper Name is, in English, Jehovah.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

Very well stated.

 

[QuestioningMind]

As for the death penalty. Many people don't like the idea of killing even murderers, but it's a deterrent to other would be murderers. Basically the death penalty is there to deter murder and ultimately save innocent people's lives.

As for when love draws the line on an issue like abortion. I don't know exactly because I'm not "love" in other words I'm not God. I do believe we should love the unborn child(fetus whatever) also. Now do we place the same worth on it as the mother?

"...but it's a deterrent to other would be murderers."

Except that there's absolutely no evidence that this is actually the case. Most murders are committed in a fit of passion, in which people aren't thinking about the consequences of their actions. The small percentage that are premeditated are committed by people who have thought through what they are going to do and have convinced themselves that they won't get caught, so any potential penalties aren't even a consideration. You just have to look at the statistics to see how useless it is as a deterrent. If it was a deterrent then the states that employ the death penalty most aggressively would have the lowest murder rates in the country, yet generally speaking the opposite is true.

 

[1213]

..."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, ...

I think in Biblical point of view, moral is not based on actions, but to reason. And basically, the moral teaching of Bible is, love your neighbor as yourself and do others at you want to be done to you. It is based on fair trade, if you do bad things to others, you give the same right to others. For example, if you murder, you give right to kill you with same reasons.

Why Morality cannot come from God

Where would it come, if not from God? Do people have moral coded in to DNA, or is it taught? If it is taught, who was the first one that taught.

 

[blü 2]

If a scientist found morality in the laboratory, I think it might just constitute a miracle.

I fear it would turn out to be a profound category error instead.

It would seem strange to ask for an objective thought in the absence of thinking beings.

That's the whole point. All thought occurs within brains. Whereas to have objective existence, our moral rule must exist independently of thought, independently of the concept of it in any brain, must (like eg carbon, or light, or stars) exist whether I'm alive or dead.

Otherwise it's not objective.

even if thinking beings are a prerequisite for morality, it does not mean that it necessarily follows that morality is subjective.

Since morality is a concept it can only exist in live brains. It's subjective, just as the abstraction 2 is subjective, in that it has no counterpart in reality.

Perhaps this idea of 'morality' is like the idea of the 'straight line'. There is no such thing as a straight line, but the concept of a straight line is undeniably useful and 'not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts'.

Yes. However, it remains the case that the only place concepts are found is in living brains.

(Whether a duly programmed computer could be a 'brain', that is, a brain-like thing that can hold concepts, is a question for another day, though I see no reason in principle why not.)

Ergo, the straight line is objective (as opposed to subjective) despite the evidence suggesting that straight lines do not exist.

No, the straight line fails the objective test, since it has no counterpart in reality. It too exists only as a concept, an abstraction, hence is found only in working brains.

 

[shunyadragon]

What? You are confounding the subject. I am not sure whether or not morality objectively exists. I do understand that some claim it does, and it is not an anachronism.

Again . . . problems claiming morality can be 'objective' when you are not certain whether or not 'it exists,' and you are claiming 'some claim it does.' This represents a vague subjective claim of the mind of those that claim 'it' does without objective evidence beyond the human mind.

 

[Paradox22]

Christians are the only religion that argues for an 'objective morality.' I see no others than Christians on this site nor any other I debate with that argue for the existence of an objective morality. do not believe they evoke any other God. except maybe if you revert to the descriptions in the Pentateuch,

Objective morality is not necessarily based on religion. However, some religions assert that morality is objective. I'm not surprised that you read about about Christians supporting some form of objective morality, but you are not well read on the topic if that is all you have encountered.

Objective morality suggest that there is a universal truth to some moral claims.

Exactly!

 

[blü 2]

I am not sure whether or not morality objectively exists. I do understand that some claim it does, and it is not an anachronism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be saying you don't understand your own use of the term 'objective morality'. If that's so, then it seems odd that you should express surprise when I told you I couldn't think of what such an expression might mean.

And it also seems odd that, having been asked three times for an example of a moral rule with objective existence, you were unable either to provide one, or to say, I can't.

Anyway, the point of discussion is to learn, and when that happens, that's good (but good as a subjective judgment, not as an objective quality of the learning, of course).

 

[74x12]

Most murders are committed in a fit of passion, in which people aren't thinking about the consequences of their actions.

However, some murders are indeed cold blooded. And even a person who is so angry they could kill may think twice. In any case, we always wonder why the prisons are so bad these days. Maybe they wouldn't be so bad.

 

[Paradox22]

That's the whole point. All thought occurs within brains. Whereas to have objective existence, our moral rule must exist independently of thought, independently of the concept of it in any brain, must (like eg carbon, or light, or stars) exist whether I'm alive or dead.

Something can be objective without being substantive. For example: Truth. Truth is not something you can find in nature, like carbon. That does not mean that something cannot be objectively true. Same with issues related to morality. Moral goodness isn't something you can shake a stick at. It exists as an abstraction.
I'm not arguing for an objective moral theory. I am saying that it is not so easily dismissed.

if I'm missing your point, I apologize. Have a good day

 

[shunyadragon]

Objective morality is not necessarily based on religion. However, some religions assert that morality is objective. I'm not surprised that you read about about Christians supporting some form of objective morality, but you are not well read on the topic if that is all you have encountered.

I have read of other views that support 'aspects' of morals and ethics being objective, but careful on how you are using this in context as used in this thread. Please give the source and specifics as how 'objective versus subjective morality' is used from a different perspective. You should also realize that the context of 'objective morality' in this thread is arguing for Theistic view against 'why morality cannot be from God.'

Sources please?!?!?!

 

[blü 2]

Something can be objective without being substantive. For example: Truth. Truth is not something you can find in nature, like carbon. That does not mean that something cannot be objectively true. Same with issues related to morality. Moral goodness isn't something you can shake a stick at. It exists as an abstraction.

Disagree.

Truth is a concept, not a thing with objective existence. I define 'true' as 'corresponding with (objective) reality' (but there are other definitions). So a statement is true in my view if it corresponds with reality.

But the statement is not a thing, and it's the statement that's true, so the whole process is conceptual / subjective / only found in working brains.

 

[Ponder This]

That's the whole point. All thought occurs within brains. Whereas to have objective existence, our moral rule must exist independently of thought, independently of the concept of it in any brain, must (like eg carbon, or light, or stars) exist whether I'm alive or dead.

Otherwise it's not objective.

I agree that 'morality' lacks 'existence' in the same sense that 'straight line' lacks existence. I understand that this is your main point and I agree: no one here will be capable of producing a 'real morality' for you.

But 'objective' does not mean 'to have existence' where 'existence' is in the same sense as 'carbon' or 'light' or 'stars'. 'Objective' means 'not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts'. For example, when a mathematician proves that 'the square root of 2 is irrational', he arrives at an objective 'fact' by proof, not by subjective 'opinion' based on how he feels about it.

Since morality is a concept it can only exist in live brains. It's subjective, just as the abstraction 2 is subjective, in that it has no counterpart in reality.

'Imaginary' does not mean 'subjective'. If that were the case, we would throw out quite a bit of thinking (including the rules of logic). Being a concept existing inside minds does not automatically make a concept subjective. That way of thinking is absurd: it turns the very idea of something being 'objective' into a subjective matter; under those rules there is no such thing as objective reality.

Yes. However, it remains the case that the only place concepts are found is in living brains.

(Whether a duly programmed computer could be a 'brain', that is, a brain-like thing that can hold concepts, is a question for another day, though I see no reason in principle why not.)

That's an interesting side-topic (and I agree a topic for another day). My first thought on the matter is that consciousness plays a role (in whatever physical implementation that would be) in order for a 'computer' to acquire 'brain-like' capacities. Otherwise, we would be saying the equivalent of pieces of paper with bunches of letters written on them are 'brain-like' things that hold concepts (which sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me)... unless you think physics textbooks actually spend time thinking...

More relevant is the fact that morality applies primarily to thinking beings such as human beings. What does morality even mean when there is nothing to which it applies?

No, the straight line fails the objective test, since it has no counterpart in reality. It too exists only as a concept, an abstraction, hence is found only in working brains.

The straight line (like the perfect circle or the decimal representation of pi) are fundamental mathematical concepts (objective concepts, because they are not 'subject' to personal feelings or opinions). They are what they are. When the state of Indiana tried to pass a law squaring the circle, it wouldn't have made squaring the circle a fact!

The 'objective test' that you are using is a test for 'real existence' and not a test for 'objectivity'. That said, I'm not claiming that there is an objective morality, merely that it would suffice to show that morality is independent of personal feelings and opinions concerning it.

Anyway, the point of discussion is to learn, and when that happens, that's good (but good as a subjective judgment, not as an objective quality of the learning, of course).

Agreed, which could mean we are part of a 'universal morality', rather than an 'objective' one.

 

[Paradox22]

I have read of other views that support 'aspects' of morals and ethics being objective, but careful on how you are using this in context as used in this thread. Please give the source and specifics as how 'objective versus subjective morality' is used from a different perspective. You should also realize that the context of 'objective morality' in this thread is arguing for Theistic view against 'why morality cannot be from God.'

Sources please?!?!?!

I apologize for suggesting you were not familiar with Ethics and morality. It wasn't constructive and was surely patronizing. Clearly you have done a great deal of thinking about these and other issues.
Source? Within reach if I turn my chair I have a book called "A system of Ethics." The book does make reference to Christianity in chapter 2 and three of Book 1. However, since Book III alone, has 11 chapters,and the entire book is nearly 700 pages, I think it is fair to say that this issue goes well beyond the scope of religion.

That's the whole point. All thought occurs within brains. Whereas to have objective existence, our moral rule must exist independently of thought, independently of the concept of it in any brain, must (like eg carbon, or light, or stars) exist whether I'm alive or dead.

I think we are talking past each other. As I understand it, you are saying a moral theory is only objective if it is independent of our brains. My understanding is that a moral principle is objective if it is independent of cultural and is true whether anyone recognizes it. Greg Klebanoff explains this better than I :
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-an-objective-moral-law

To quote him
" People sometimes use the same terms in different ways, but by “objective moral law” most philosophers mean moral principals that are true independent of cultural conditioning and independent of whether anyone recognizes them. If I say “Torturing babies for fun is wrong” is an objective moral law, I mean it is true in all cultures (regardless of whether a given culture recognizes it as wrong or not) and true regardless of whether anyone believes it or not. Belief that there are objective moral laws or moral facts is called “moral realism.”


I hope this helps. Maybe we can move the discussion along if we talk in terms of "Moral realism" rather than "objective morality." We could be missing an opportunity to have a good discussion of what kind of moral principle can be formulated without reference to religion. Personally, I think Rawls "theory of Justice" has a lot going for it. He tries to argue for a principle of universal justice that has utilitarianism as a foundation. No easy feat!

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

How does love provide an answer to whether the Death penalty is morally sound?

I consider it love when you definitively protect society from monsters. That being said, I think it should be near impossible to get and you practically have to have your DNA all over everything plus a video of you bragging as you do the deed.

How does love draw the line between when it is morally acceptable to have an abortion?

Some people shouldn't have kids and some people can't have kids.

Many people don't like the idea of killing even murderers, but it's a deterrent to other would be murderers.

I've heard it said it doesn't deter other criminals.

It sure does manage to stop the ones we shot, though.

I would say you are right in that theist have to accept that everything god does is good.

Why? There are evil gods and goddesses just as there are "good" ones.

The designer determined the laws of physics. Thus its inescapable. The designer chooses what he wishes. Right and wrong

Faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains, which are not movable, at least by humans. So Jesus is lying.

Only if there is a G-d that forbids murder, does murder become evil.

But He doesn't always do that, hence the confusion.

 

[Apologetics]

Faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains, which are not movable, at least by humans. So Jesus is lying.

Jesus spoke in figures of speech all the time. The Bible is full of figures of speech. Ex land that flows with milk and honey. If your right hand offend you cut it off. Eat my flesh drink my blood just a few.

So yes a little amount of faith can move a mountain. Translated as an insurmountable problem in ones life if placed by faith in the hands of God can be overcome. With God all things are possible. Mat 19:26

 

[74x12]

It sure does manage to stop the ones we shot, though.

Agreed.