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

[fantôme profane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/?page_id=89
http://www.moralphilosophy.info/euthyphrodilemma.html


It has been suggested that an atheist can have no objective grounds for morality, where as the theist does. This raises several questions. Can a theist have an objective ground for morality? Is there an objective ground for moral values that can be applied to “God” or does the basis of morality come from “God”?

If there is an objective moral standard that exits independent of “God” and can be applied to “God” (as in saying that “God is good”) then that moral standard would logically be available to atheists as well as theists. If there is no objective moral standard and morality is just what “God” says it is then the theist has no more claim to an objective morality than the atheists does. I will grant in this case that the theist does have a claim of authority for their values, but not morality.

[Mister Emu]

Can a theist have an objective ground for morality?

I have one objective of me, but subjective to God.

[michel]

[quote=fantôme profane;1163500]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/?page_id=89
http://www.moralphilosophy.info/euthyphrodilemma.html

It has been suggested that an atheist can have no objective grounds for morality,

I would debate that point; I believe it to be wrong..........

This raises several questions. Can a theist have an objective ground for morality? Is there an objective ground for moral values that can be applied to “God” or does the basis of morality come from “God”?

Strangely enough, if I was not a theist, I would still abide by the same "set of rules"; true, the comandments about God specifically would have no meaning, but the rest of them ? - I think they stand whatever you believe.

[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.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

I have one objective of me, but subjective to God.

Wouldn't your morality still be subject to which God you believe in?

[kai]

if you take the ten commanmens for example they are all pretty common sense really and i cant beleive people lived in communities and thought murder and stealing were ethically right until yaweh decided to write them in stone, in order for a community of people be it a family or clan to survive intact they have to naturally protect there own by laws, i think they are then reinforced by religion as "you are being overlooked and will be punshed by a higher authority"

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

If there is an objective moral standard that exits independent of “God” and can be applied to “God” (as in saying that “God is good”) then that moral standard would logically be available to atheists as well as theists.

Everyone agrees (or should agree) that IF there is such a thing as an objective moral standard, atheists have access to it even if the soure of it is God. Indeed, on one Christian perspective, all persons, Christian or not, has a sensus divinitatus that enables us to perceive God and moral truths. This faculty is damaged, which accounts for the diversity of moral views, but we all nonetheless have this faculty. 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.

If there is no objective moral standard and morality is just what “God” says it is then the theist has no more claim to an objective morality than the atheists does. I will grant in this case that the theist does have a claim of authority for their values, but not morality.

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. 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.

[Fluffy]

I am yet to read an argument that demonstrates a meaningful and objective morality that does not require God.

On the other hand, I am yet to read an argument that demonstrates a meaningful and objective morality that does require God.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I am yet to read an argument that demonstrates a meaningful and objective morality that does not require God.

On the other hand, I am yet to read an argument that demonstrates a meaningful and objective morality that does require God.