Euthyphro dilemma. (moral, Darwin, choices, choice, atheist)

[3.14]

wel god does commit genoncide wich most people still find moraly wrong,
eskimo's still have morals yet they never heard of god (just small nature worshiping)

people still have morals because they need that to live with other people and proloneged living with other people developed a concious that tells you when moral ends and immoral begins.
if you have a strong developed concious then it can actualy influence your actions, so if you do something "bad" then your concious will drive you to redeem yourself (this depends on what the persons feels they need to do to redeem themself)

[Troublemane]

Ethics and morality are instincts we have evolved that make us social creatures, because we know innately we have difficulty living by ourselves. Its easier to survive as a species as a community. I think we know that behavior gives signals to others who is dependable and who is not, even simple clues like dress and hairstyle or jewelry tells alot about what "tribe" we belong to, and whether or not we are supposed to trust someone else from another "tribe" (or social grouping). So we call these different social groupings things like "religion" and "political party", or someone is "blue collar" or "white collar" workers, or maybe someone is a "yuppie" or a "jock" or a "punker" or maybe a "stoner", stuff like that. Then we use the differences in the rituals and behaviors that define the group as justification for why they behave that way and why it is inherently definitive of that group. Obviously its more desireable to be in their group so you must believe what they believe, act as they act, pray as they pray, etc. It becomes you identity and thus, makes you easier to trust (for members of that group) because your actions will be absolutely predictable. They know what you will do in given situations, so you can be trusted.

This is ethics and ethical behavior, according to a prescribed moral code. The moral sense I think is more general, and can be more like hearing an animal in pain you know it is feeling it and it is unsettling. It is greater when you hear a person in pain, but only because it may be easier to sympathize with a person. I personally dont feel that religious programming be necessary to explain morality, but I do believe it is why we have survived as a species--so it has an existential component to it, and it should be fostered. But, even though no religion has a monopoly on morality, I do think it has "divine" component to it, in that it shows our ability to rise above ourselves as individuals and feel as another feels, which is actually very spiritual. Being able to empathize with others (especially those different from us) is a tremendously amazing thing which has few parallels in the animal world. It is an awareness that brings us closer to the divine unity that encompasses all existence, so it does have a religious component without dogma. It may be religion in its purest form.

Thats my opinion anyway

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Engyo

Well, Buddhists have a possibly objective grounds for morality.

The goal of Buddhist practice is the end of dukkha; therefore thoughts/choices/actions which diminish dukkha are moral, and thoughts/choices/actions which increase dukkha are immoral.

I would agree with this. And I would also point out that this would work equally well for those who believe there is a “God” and those who believe there isn’t a “God”.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

I simply say that there CANNOT be an objective moral standard without a god. Without a god, we are reduced to a crass subjectivism or a social darwinism or other such thing. Many atheists try to establish an objective morality on other terms, but nothing I've read so far really works.

You simply say this, but you have not established it. You also have not established that there can be an objective moral standard with “God”.

You keep mentioning Darwinism and Social Darwinism and pointing out that they do not provide a good basis for morality, and it seems from this that you concluded that therefore nothing really works. May I ask a favour of you Dunemeister, would you take a look at Engyo’s post in this thread (post #4) and give me your reaction to that.

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

What God says is the objective moral standard. It won't be objective to God, for God's character, aims, and so forth determine what's good and evil.

But the question I am asking is how does “God” determine what is good or evil? Does “God” consider the act and consider the outcome much in the same way a human could? Or does “God” simply say that something is good and it becomes so? If “God” were to determine that murder was good would that make it so?

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

For what makes something moral is that it is an actual authoritative standard (thou shalt and thou shalt not) that is objective (not merely a matter of human opinion). It's hard to imagine why the resultant "values" (as you've put it) aren't moral.

This is exactly what I find so ridiculous. An authoritative standard does not in any way make something moral. It is completely arbitrary. If it is “God” alone that determines good and evil then the statement that murder is wrong could just as easily be murder is good. “God says something is wrong” is a very common argument, but it is not a moral argument. There is no objective moral basis for saying this. Why would I consider something that comes from authority to automatically be moral? Authoritative does not equal moral.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

You simply say this, but you have not established it. You also have not established that there can be an objective moral standard with “God”.

I've said it several times. Perhaps you've missed it. In short, God's personality, his desires, loves, hates, intentions, purposes, etc., establish the norm by which all other desires, hates, intentions, actions, etc. are to be evaluated.

You keep mentioning Darwinism and Social Darwinism and pointing out that they do not provide a good basis for morality, and it seems from this that you concluded that therefore nothing really works. May I ask a favour of you Dunemeister, would you take a look at Engyo’s post in this thread (post #4) and give me your reaction to that.

It may "seem" that way, but it's not. I merely mention them as a natural conclusion of atheism. I've said that atheists frequently try to establish objective morality on other grounds, but so far I remain unconvinced by the theories. I'll have a look an Engyo's post in a tick and offer my comment in a seperate post.

But the question I am asking is how does “God” determine what is good or evil? Does “God” consider the act and consider the outcome much in the same way a human could? Or does “God” simply say that something is good and it becomes so? If “God” were to determine that murder was good would that make it so?

I've explained how above. I'm sure God does consider the consequences of an action and determine whether it's good or bad. How does God do this? Just like us, based on his personality, intentions, understanding, etc. IF God were to determine that murder were good, it would be so. Fortunately, God isn't like that, so murder is evil. Whew!

This is exactly what I find so ridiculous. An authoritative standard does not in any way make something moral. It is completely arbitrary. If it is “God” alone that determines good and evil then the statement that murder is wrong could just as easily be murder is good. “God says something is wrong” is a very common argument, but it is not a moral argument. There is no objective moral basis for saying this. Why would I consider something that comes from authority to automatically be moral? Authoritative does not equal moral.

I'm not sure why you use the word "arbitrary." God is who he is. He likes what he likes and hates what he hates. Unlike us, he doesn't change in that regard. Certainly if we had a different god we'd have a different moral standard. (That's part of what's behind the different moral standards advocated by different religions.)

BTW, I don't equate authoritativeness with morality. I've only said that for a standard to be moral, it must at least be authoritative and objective. It may also have to be other things besides, and if so, I'm happy for you to inform us what that might be. (It sounds to me like you'd like to add 'non-arbitrary'.)

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

I've said it several times. Perhaps you've missed it. In short, God's personality, his desires, loves, hates, intentions, purposes, etc., establish the norm by which all other desires, hates, intentions, actions, etc. are to be evaluated.

If this is the case then how do you evaluate “God’s” personality, desires, loves hates, intentions, purposes? Are you saying that “God’s” personality etc cannot be evaluated, if so then a statement like “God is good” has no meaning. If you are saying that “God’s” personality etc can be evaluated than what standard do you use?

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

IF God were to determine that murder were good, it would be so.

But once you say that then the entire concepts of good and evil become absolutely meaningless.

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Fortunately, God isn't like that, so murder is evil. Whew!

But why is that fortunate? Are you saying that it is a good thing that “God” says that murder is wrong? And if so what is your basis for saying that? What standard do you use to make the evaluation that this is fortunate? Don’t you see that you are stuck? If you are saying that it is fortunate that “God” says murder is wrong then you must be applying some kind of standard to “God”, a standard that transcends “God”. If on the other hand there is no moral standard that transcends “God” and “God” is the ultimate basis of right and wrong it would be equally fortunate (or unfortunate) regardless of what stance “God” took on murder.

“IF God were to determine that murder were good, it would be so.” And therefore if that were the case you would be saying “fortunately God says murder is good, whew”.

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

I'm not sure why you use the word "arbitrary." God is who he is. He likes what he likes and hates what he hates. Unlike us, he doesn't change in that regard. Certainly if we had a different god we'd have a different moral standard. (That's part of what's behind the different moral standards advocated by different religions.)



BTW, I don't equate authoritativeness with morality. I've only said that for a standard to be moral, it must at least be authoritative and objective. It may also have to be other things besides, and if so, I'm happy for you to inform us what that might be. (It sounds to me like you'd like to add 'non-arbitrary'.)

I use the word arbitrary precisely because if “God” is the norm on which we judge all other values, then there is no reason for “God” to prefer anything. If this is the case then “God” saying murder is bad is no different than “God” saying chocolate ice cream is good. It is not a matter of objective morality, but simply a case of “God’s” personal preferences, he likes what he likes and hates what he hates.

And yes I certainly would add non-arbitrary. That is just another way of saying that there should be reasons.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

I'm not sure why you use the word "arbitrary." God is who he is. He likes what he likes and hates what he hates. Unlike us, he doesn't change in that regard. Certainly if we had a different god we'd have a different moral standard. (That's part of what's behind the different moral standards advocated by different religions.)

I think "arbitrary" is appropriate. If God has some external set of reasons for decreeing what is right and what is wrong, then that set of reasons is the source of morality, and it's external to and independent of God. If God truly is the source of morality, then good and bad are only good and bad because He deemed them so, and any other arrangement would have been just as right or valid.

[Fluffy]