Moral argument my version - proof for God.

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would like to explore this a little further. So are you saying that rules are required for a species to live socially and cooperatively and therefore rules as a class are objectively necessary, that it is this class of rules we label 'Morals'? Since the rules that govern social behavior in a species can be either pre-wired inherited instinct or rules developed through intersubjective agreement between species members, would you put both sources of social rules under the category 'Morals'? Based on your statement that there is no morality without human beings, you seem to imply that only the social rules that are assigned through intersubjective agreement qualify being placed in the category 'Morals'. How do we detangle subjective rules influenced by instinct from purely subjective rules when trying to discern a rules objective status?

If category of social rules are an objective requirement, are the properties or requirements of any particular rule or set of rules objectively required, or are the rules themselves strictly relative or subjective?

Since you state that morals are dependent on the existence of human beings you seem to be stating clearly that there are no Morals external to human experience, that there are no universal or transcendent objective moral standards. Is this a correct assumption?

I'm trying to understand exactly what it means to say morality is objective.

Ow boy. You're really going to make me spend time to try and explain it, are you?

I'll do my very best to try and be clear what I mean without being to lengthy, because in all honest: entire books can be (and are!) written about this subject.

First things first:

you seem to be stating clearly that there are no Morals external to human experience, that there are no universal or transcendent objective moral standards. Is this a correct assumption?

Yes, that is a very correct assumption. Morality is a thing, or becomes a thing, the second you have more then 1 human occupying the same space in a cooperative relationship working towards a common goal.

I refer to them as "rules of conduct" at times, but I can see how that might be confusing. I don't necessarily mean laws and matters of legality - as those aren't necessarily about morals, although they will certainly overlap.


Morality first and foremost is about human relations. How people treat other people.
So a question I ask is, what exactly distinguishes a moral act from an immoral act. What is the difference? And perhaps more importantly in context of this post, is that difference subjective or objective?

I say it objective. The difference, at bottom, is about suffering vs well-being.
That which is detrimental to well-being / increases suffering, is what we label "immoral".
That which is decreases suffering / increases well-being, is what we label "moral".
This might sound simplistic, but in case you don't necessarily agree, I challenge you to come up with an act that can be reasonably argued to be immoral, while it does NOT increase suffering or decreases well-being (in short or long term). I tried and failed.

So, morality is, like I said in my post, undetachably linked to well-being and suffering.
Knowing this, it seems to me to be perfectly possible to use objective reasoning to determine what is and isn't moral.

Try and create a reasonable argument from which the conclusion follows that torturing babies is moral, without using "what-if" premises or hypothetical scenario's, off course.

This is not to say that moral reasoning becomes easy, because it really isn't. It can be, depending on subject/context, but it overall it isn't. There is a LOT that comes into play when considering what "well-being" is. It's not just about being healthy for example. It's also about psychological health, societal health, etc.

Another aspect here is the whole idea of the "in" and "out" group. This is how racists rationalize their racism. The race they hate, is the "out group". They aren't considered on the same "level" as their in-group.

The method / morality I'm talking about, has no "out-group". All sentient beings are part of the "in group".

So, from that perspective, there certainly are right and wrong answers to moral questions. And that's how moral reasoning becomes an objective process imo. Because well-being and suffering, can be objectively evaluated. And as science progresses, we become better and better at such evaluation. We, for example, understand a lot more today about the detrimental effects of psychological abuse then we did 100 years ago.



I call it "pseudo" objective, precisely because human morality is dependend on humans existing. Humans just happen to be a social cooperative species. It didn't have to be that way. But as it turns out, it is. So morality isn't found under a rock (which would make truly objective imo, but then it exists externally to humans, which is not the case).


An analogy I just came up with as I was thinking about this, with the whole subjective / objective thing, is music.

Musical taste is subjective. Some people like metal, some people like classical, some people like blues, some people like it all.
But what about music theory? Is that subjective as well?

For example....

Regardless of your musical taste... do you think any human is going to find this pleasant to listen to?
You don't need to know the first thing about music to immediately realize that vocals are terribly off-key, the music is off-beat. It's just pretty objectively terrible all round. Nobody would sign this band. Nobody would record this band. Nobody would play this music in his car. Except when on pot and in for a good laugh, perhaps

But is music theory "objective" in the sense that the laws of motion are "objective"? No, absolutely not.
But it's not really "subjective" either, right? This song here, makes your ears bleed - regardless of your musical taste. It makes you cringe. It makes you feel ashamed in their place. It makes you uncomfortable. It makes you ask yourself what on earth went through these guys minds thinking they are good enough to play a gig.

And all that, without knowing a single note of music yourself.

I feel like the same is true, somewhat, for morality. It's like music theory. It's not objective: ie, you don't find it under a rock. But it's not exactly subjective either.

There is no "argument" to be made why metal sounds better then reaggae.
But there most definitely is an argument to be made for why murder is immoral, why psychological abuse is immoral and why helping those in need is moral. And why the song posted above is hilariously terrible.

And if someone thinks he can make a valid argument as to why engaging in systematic psychological abuse or rape or whatevs is actually moral, I'ld like to hear it! But I won't be holding my breath.




Did this make sense to you?
I'm sorry if it is a bit chaotic.

My views on this are inspired in large part by Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape, which I really recommend. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but it certainly gives a fresh perspective that at bottom makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Link]

Even if I accepted all the rest of the points (which I don't, they're riddled with assumptions), the conclusion (11) is a non sequitur. You haven't anywhere justified that any being has to be able see "ultimate morality" if it exists, let alone that if there is one, it must be unique in that ability and be identified as 'god'.

I usually place the fact that morality requires perception, but decided to keep the premise silent and implicit this time, because it's really an insult to intelligence to assume otherwise.

 

[Link]

@Rise the moral argument Craig uses has two components. "If God doesn't exist, then objective morality doesn't" (1). The 2nd component is "objective morality exists" (2)?.

Usually he argues a lot for 1, and somewhat argues for 2, but for 2, he appeals to emotion. For 1, he appeals to intellect. Together, they are a strong argument.

My argument can be summarized to his 2 facts and conclusion as well, but I went out of my way to prove (1) so it's a lot of premises to prove it. We can go another route, which is to assume God doesn't exist, then explain why morality won't exist objectively either, which is what Craig does. But what I did was show it's eternal with using contradiction, assume Creator can create it from not existing before, then we run to problems. These problems are also used to disprove command theory and these facts are accepted by philosophers when disproving command theory. I use it to prove God.

 

[ratiocinator]

I usually place the fact that morality requires perception, but decided to keep the premise silent and implicit this time, because it's really an insult to intelligence to assume otherwise.

Why? If you added that premiss, it would obviously be false.

 

[Link]

Why? If you added that premiss, it would obviously be false.

Morality is a type perception related to intentions and actions, it's too obvious and too clear. You can doubt it or at least say you do, but it won't make less obvious to being true.

Moral rules aren't like physical rules, where people can argue, they don't require God (although they would be wrong), they are obviously metaphysical. Even in the case of Atheists, without minds/perception, how can morals exist? Where do they exist then?

Sorry dude, you got no leg to stand on here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think the mafia doing hits on other families or rival tribes illustrates how easy it is to justify killing. Whether it's one nation going to war with another or the mafia doing hits these acts are done because it 1) shows loyalty to the tribe, 2) benefits the goals and aims of the tribe. On one hand our governing authority hands out guns to members and says "go kill" and on the other it says to the mafia "killing is a crime".

True.

The "old school" italian mob was a bit different though. Sammy Gravano was one of them.
He makes a big deal about how he only killed "their own". He goes out of his way to make a distinction between "legit people"/"citizens" and "gangsters".
This went so far that when he organized a hit, he would cancel it immediately if the guy turned up with his wife or kids or whatever. Because they had nothing to do with it and he felt they didn't need to see what was about to happen as it would be too traumatizing.

It's fascinating to hear such a guy speak. On the one hand, he talks about killing like I talk about brushing my teeth or changing my pants. And on the other hand, he is constantly aware of the suffering he causes by doing so.

In this one interview, he said that he had high moral standards. The interviewer laughed and said that that is pretty funny coming from a guy who admitted to 19 murders....
To which he replies "sure, but those were our people... this was the life they chose. It's also the life I chose. If I break the rules, I'll get hit as well."
And then he went on explaining how when he first became a mafia associate, and then certainly when he became a made guy, he completely assumed that by the time he was 40 either he would be dead or be sentenced to life in prison.

I find that extremely fascinating from a human psychological perspective. On the one hand, he indeed says and does things that tell me he is a honorable, stand-up guy with indeed high moral standards and actually rather loving and warm personality. At the same time, he's like a serial killing psychopath.

There are stories on his channel where he talks about the old days. At first he is like a funny loving warm grandpa telling a funny story. Then it gets serious and you can literally almost see him transform. His "aura" changes completely and it's instantly a guy that I wouldn't want to meet in some dark ally. And then the serious part is over, and he's that nice loving grandpa again.


Very very weird.

Psychologists would have a field day studying that man.

 

[ratiocinator]

Morality is a type perception related to intentions and actions, it's too obvious and too clear.

If morality is a type of perception then it can't also be objective.

You can doubt it or at least say you do, but it won't make less obvious to being true.

"It's obvious" really is a terrible 'argument'.

 

[Link]

If morality is a type of perception then it can't also be objective.

False and unproven.

 

[Link]

And I already illustrated why morality is a perception and can be objective as well.

 

[ratiocinator]

And I already illustrated why morality is a perception and can be objective as well.

Why do you always do this? You post an 'argument', people point out obvious problems with it and you just insist you've already answered them. What's the point?

 

[Link]

Why do you always do this? You post an 'argument', people point out obvious problems with it and you just insist you've already answered them. What's the point?

The point is something is proven and someone just denies it, it doesn't do away with the proof does it now?

We are talking about reality and reality is goodness can be perceived. You can say it's actually just chocolate, it won't make it true because you say non-sense about it now, would it?

When non-silly replies are responded to a premise, then I will reply seriously and elaborately. So far, you are being silly in talking about morality as if it's physical laws or something, and doesn't require perception. Math can be argued to exist with or without perception, since, reality depends on it no matter what. But morals, don't exist as physical properties of inanimate objects. When people are that obtuse, it doesn't do away with the proof, but just shows, they don't have a response to it.

I am assertive, so, the silliness becomes obvious by that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The point is something is proven and someone just denies it, it doesn't do away with the proof does it now?

The problem is that people here aren't "just denying" it.
Instead, they are dissecting your argument point by point and refuting it.

You're the one that is in denial.

 

[ratiocinator]

The point is something is proven and someone just denies it, it doesn't do away with the proof does it now?

But that's not what's happening. People are addressing the steps of your 'argument' and you are basically ignoring then.

We are talking about reality and reality is goodness can be perceived.

If it's actually objective, it has to be able to exist apart from being perceived. You said it was 'eternal' which means that it had to exist before anybody perceived it. If you then claim that as a reason for the need for an eternal being, that makes the whole thing circular. You've assumed your conclusion; you've just contrived the definition to fit your preconceived conclusion.

In short, if I accept that morality is objective (which I don't), then your conclusion (11) doesn't follow. If it's objective, it doesn't need to be perceived.

 

[Link]

What you say is true, it does exist eternally, but it still requires to be perceived and that I already proved with you just repeating denial without addressing any of my elaboration.

 

[ratiocinator]

What you say is true, it does exist eternally, but it still requires to be perceived and that I already proved with you just repeating denial without addressing any of my elaboration.

There you go again. I don't accept that it's objective and if it is, it wouldn't need perceiving, and I've explained why. There isn't anything in your argument that actually established either point.

You didn't actually explicitly introduce the idea that objective morality would need to be perceived until #102, and then when I questioned it you just asserted that it was obvious.

The only logically relevant definition of 'objective' here is "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual." You said:

Even in the case of Atheists, without minds/perception, how can morals exist? Where do they exist then?

and I agree that they only exist in minds, and that makes them subjective. If we were perceiving something outside of ourselves, then your statement would be wrong.

Your whole argument started with the notion that even a creator would have no choice, which would have to mean that morals are external to any creator's mind too, again making your statement false.

 

[Link]

God seems himself and is the standard.

What is The Euthyphro Dilemma? (William Lane Craig) - YouTube

It's just 1 minute.

 

[Link]

In my view, William Lane Craig is wrong in that he doesn't realize his 3rd option is actually a version of one of the two (God commands it because it's good). But it illustrates the point clearly.

 

[ratiocinator]

In my view, William Lane Craig is wrong in that he doesn't realize his 3rd option is actually a version of one of the two (God commands it because it's good). But it illustrates the point clearly.

I know what the Euthyphro dilemma is, and if god wills it because it is good, then good must be independent of god, so there would be no need for a god to perceive it at all.

 

[Link]

I know what the Euthyphro dilemma is, and if god wills it because it is good, then good must be independent of god, so there would be no need for a god to perceive it at all.

The conclusion it must be independent of God is a false one, because God is the standard and perceives himself and acts according to his essence which the standards of morality are all rooted in.

William Lane Craig and I agree on this with just that I see his 3rd version as a version of of 1 of the 2.

 

[Rise]

What you mean to say is that nothing can be proved to be immoral outside of the subjective opinion of human beings. We can still consider things to be immoral because we choose to. We do not require an imagined external entity to validate that choice.

Your argument is also faulty

There are two problems with your statement:

1. You misunderstand what I said.

I said there is more to proving something exists than only using the laws of logic and mathematics. You are operating from the false presumption that anything real or true can be proven by math and logic.

This gets into the philosophical area of what is called proper basic beliefs. Which is that there are certain things we know are true but which are impossible to prove by the laws of logic or mathematics (ie science).

For instance:
- the fact we exist.
- the fact that we live in a physical reality, and this isn’t all just an illusion.
- the fact we have free will and consciousness.
- the fact that we live in time and have a past, and weren’t just created 2 minutes ago with a fake past put into our mind.
- the fact that truth and logic exists. You can’t prove logic exists with logic because that would be circular reasoning. But we generally all know truth and logic exist.

And, likewise;
- the fact that we all have a shared inner sense that there exists objective right and wrong. We all generally experience and know it. But we can’t prove it exists with logic and math.

When you say “prove” you’re talking about is trying to use the laws of logic and mathematics to establish something is true.

But you can’t prove objective morality with mathematics and logic.

The Bible tells us why you can’t because it says morality does not flow out of those laws. Those laws did not create morality.

Those laws are only useful for proving behaviors of the universe because the universe is governed by those laws. Which makes sense if God created the universe to abide by certain laws that examining the universe in light of those laws would help us to prove certain things about it’s function are true.

The Bible tells us morality does not come from the laws that govern the universe, but come from God’s design and intended purpose for us.
Now, we might be able to deduce what our purpose is by looking at God’s creation to figure out what his design and intention was, but that’s not the same as saying our purpose came from the laws of the universe.

Therefore, we wouldn’t expect the laws of logic and math to be able to tell us what morality is because those laws don’t govern morality and aren’t it’s source.

The Bible says we don’t even need to do that because God gave us an inner witness to what our purpose is, what morality is, and we were born with it.

This fits with what we observe about our reality: that we all have a shared sense that objective morality exists, and further scientific observation of babies supports the idea that people are born with a certain sense of morality.

2. You operate from the false assumption that morals are subjective. Which then causes you to falsely claim theism and atheism are on equal ground.

I say “false assumption” because we generally all have a proper basic knowing that some standard of objective morality exists, just as we have a basic knowing that our free will exists.

And unless you are willing to jettison a belief in those things (which most atheists aren’t) then Atheism is burdened with the requirement of offering an explanation for these known phenomenon by materialistic means. But it logically can’t.

Theism, specifically Christianity, does offer an explanation for this experienced reality of objective morality. An explanation that is consistent with what we know.

Let me put it this way with an analogy: if we all know apples fall from trees because we observe it then we need an explanation for why this happens. Simply claiming it doesn’t happen, and that we must be seeing an illusion, only because your worldview doesn’t allow for such a phenomenon as gravity to exist, doesn’t change the fact that everyone generally knows apples are in actual reality falling from trees in the exact same manner.

As such, an explanation is still required for the observed phenomenon. You don’t explain a known phenomenon by just telling yourself it doesn’t exist.

Likewise, atheism still has a burden for explaining the known reality of objective morality if it wants to deny the only known explanation for it.