• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Morality? Right or wrong?

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Found this short video and would like to hear to what degree people find this argument to be true or false?


Try to explain why you hold one position over the other... or why you find the argument compelling or weak.

EDIT:
Decided to add this video about objectivity and subjectivity, as there seem to be a lot of confusion about what it means.
 
Last edited:

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Personally, I take objection to the idea that god, which cannot be shown to objectively exist, is their claimed source for objective morality.

And that is just the first 45 seconds...

I also object to the bold empty claim that there even is an objective morality outside the individual
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Personally, I take objection to the idea that god, which cannot be shown to objectively exist, is their claimed source for objective morality.

And that is just the first 45 seconds...
Apparently a lot of people believe in objective morality, don't know if you do? But if you do, where would you say that objective morality comes from?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Apparently a lot of people believe in objective morality, don't know if you do? But if you do, where would you say that objective morality comes from?
You replied before my edit, when I added:

I also object to the bold empty claim that there even is an objective morality outside the individual​
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
God, however one defines it, is not the foundation of reference for good.

Good and evil are human concepts that are societal axioms. They simply don't exist outside humanity.

As I see it, the concept of good was applied to "God."

We humans are different to the animals.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
You replied before my edit, when I added:

I also object to the bold empty claim that there even is an objective morality outside the individual​
So in that case his argument is sound? That objective morality doesn't exists without a God?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
God, however one defines it, is not the foundation of reference for good.

Good and evil are human concepts that are societal axioms. They simply don't exist outside humanity.

As I see it, the concept of good was applied to "God."
It could be argued that as it is expressed by all that exists; it is better to exist than not to exist. And this being the case, there is, in fact, an 'existential good', and therefor an 'existential evil'. That which furthers the cause of existing, is good, while that which negates the cause of existing, is evil. This would be an axiom that stands beyond the context of humanity.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Apples are completely different to the vehicles.

mnkhklylau0tkjsyb7ku.jpg
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
So in that case his argument is sound? That objective morality doesn't exists without a God?
I have no idea how you came to that possible conclusion.

The first minute makes two bold empty claims:
  1. God Exists
  2. Objective Morality Exists
Until both of those claims can be shown to be objectively true...
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
It could be argued that as it is expressed by all that exists; it is better to exist than not to exist. And this being the case, there is, in fact, an 'existential good', and therefor an 'existential evil'. That which furthers the cause of existing, is good, while that which negates the cause of existing, is evil. This would be an axiom that stands beyond the context of humanity.

I suppose it could be, but likely unsuccessfully, since humans are the only species that can relay a sense of what is 'existential good.'
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
I have no idea how you came to that possible conclusion.

The first minute makes two bold empty claims:
  1. God Exists
  2. Objective Morality Exists
Until both of those claims can be shown to be objectively true...
Don't think to much about whether or not God exists.

His claim is that objective morality can only exists if morality is measured against some God that is good and therefore sets the standard of what good is and what it is not.

For instant, "Drowning and torturing infants is always wrong", which would be objectively wrong. But if no God exists, how can you say that it is objectively wrong to do something like that? Where would the "objective" element originate from?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
This opens up the Euryphro dilemma:

Is something good *because* God approves of it, or does God approve of it *because* it is good?

The first opens up the possibility of a God that approves of murder, rape, and all sorts of things. That would make those things good if God is the arbiter of goodness. Most people reject this (fortunately).

And the second would show that Goodness exists independently of God.

Hence, if there is an objective morality, it does NOT come from a God. Instead, God realizes what is good and approves of it.

Assuming, of course, that there is a God.

Instead of using a supernatural to ground morality, why not use human biology? We are a social species. Some rules of society are better for human well-being than others. Those rules that promote human well-being are, by definition, moral. Those that degrade human well-being are, by definition, immoral.

In that way, morality becomes objective for humans.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Personally, I take objection to the idea that god, which cannot be shown to objectively exist, is their claimed source for objective morality.

And that is just the first 45 seconds...

I also object to the bold empty claim that there even is an objective morality outside the individual

If you take objection to the claim that there is an objective morality outside the individual then you agree with what they are saying ie.The morality inside the individual is subjective so all of morality is subjective unless you have a point of reference for what is good and what is not good.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Don't think to much about whether or not God exists.

His claim is that objective morality can only exists if morality is measured against some God that is good and therefore sets the standard of what good is and what it is not.

For instant, "Drowning and torturing infants is always wrong", which would be objectively wrong. But if no God exists, how can you say that it is objectively wrong to do something like that? Where would the "objective" element originate from?


If God *does* exist, how can you say that? For example, if God decided to approve of drowning and torturing infants, then it would, by definition, be good *if* goodness is defined as being what God approves of.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Found this short video and would like to hear to what degree people find this argument to be true or false?



Try to explain why you hold one position over the other... or why you find the argument compelling or weak.
Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. I know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist.

We humans have a conscience, moral intuition, which is our only moral authority. Unlike opinions on music, beauty or architecture, the judgments of conscience are not subjective.

If a group of say 33 unbiased people hear the facts of a specific moral situation and the majority finds the act immoral, that is an objective judgment.

Conscience might be the gift of a Creator or it might be the product of evolution. However, its existence does argue that we don't need the moral guidance of religion which is unnecessary at best and a conflicting bias at its worst.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
It could be argued that as it is expressed by all that exists; it is better to exist than not to exist. And this being the case, there is, in fact, an 'existential good', and therefor an 'existential evil'. That which furthers the cause of existing, is good, while that which negates the cause of existing, is evil. This would be an axiom that stands beyond the context of humanity.
But doesn't that depends on how you exists, let's say you exists with terrible pain and suffering everyday of your life due to some disease or whatever? Would it be better to exist than to not do?
 
Top