Morality: Do you agree

[Eli G]

Maybe we overthink it

The truth is that all humans need to be educated in many subjects that we need to know to live... as if we were all children and we need our parents in the first place, because we are born among them and we owe them the first things we learn. Even as adults we have many more things to learn about life... From my point of view, this need to be educated or instructed is instinctive, because deep down we know that we depend on many things that we cannot control on our own, so we need the help that the One who originally created us would give us under normal conditions.

Now, in this topic the role of God in that education is discussed. But it is that if atheists talk about morality, the same: where are they going to educate themselves to invent something like that? I recognize the human essence as good and humble, and sooner or later we often come to understand our mistakes in a natural way, many times after much suffering... other times others point them out to us and educate us about it, because they have already passed for similar situations.

Isn't morality a set of principles and teachings that we learn that we must follow so that everything goes well and smoothly? Where do atheists invent that education from, apart from the natural instinctive nobility that we have from birth? Hopefully and it's not just to please the whims of a small group of soulless with a desire to control others or prevent them from making their own decisions on issues that we have the right to choose on our own.

So, what is the moral we are discussing about here? And why do atheist need to mention God to talk about morality? Where did their "moral" come from?

 

[Koldo]

They are all are equally designed and created by God and have been since the beginning of time.

This doesn't entail that 'there is no difference between physical/non-physical properties of a Divinely created world'.

The method of judging the morality of an action would be. There are invisible mechanics judging your actions against the standards set by God.

This is no different from a video game 'judging' your actions based on the game's mechanics.

In what way is it different from me judging everyone's actions?

Yes, that seems to be the problem.

You really don't see why having a definitive and fixed point of comparison is different from making subjective comparisons?

When it comes down to morality, I don't. Because at the end of the day this fixed point of comparison is merely someone's point of view.

Creating a new set of moral rules in a Divinely created world is like trying to move your king 5 spaces in an official chess tournament.

You can do it, but it's objectively wrong.

It is not an objectively wrong move. Rather, it is an illegal move as per the current rules. And just like the rules have been historically changed by people that have not originally designed the game, the rules could also be changed by others. What matters is adherence to those new rules.

 

[Koldo]

That is an odd way to look at it, I think.

We tend to try to understand the world around us and in some cases, the proof is not currently available or understood. Why do scientists waste time on dark energy and dark matter, there is no proof for it, just throw it in the bin then.

I don't care if you are in charge of morality, because there is nothing even remotely suggesting that you are. It's like me telling you... "You don't care that I told you I created the Universe. I don't understand that?"

There is nothing even remotely suggesting God is in charge of morality.

If we thought that rape was morally good, then yes, we would prefer going around and raping people and it would not be considered a crime or even wrong.

If you like to see debates, here is a debate between an atheist and a believer, both hold the opinion that objective morality is true. The debate is about what offers the best explanation for it. I am just about to watch it myself so don't know if it is good or not, but it might be interesting for you to hear their arguments, since they both agree on that. I overall agree with you, that there is no such thing as objective morality, so in that regard, we agree, you just seem very certain in your conviction that there is no alternative at all and therefore no reason to even listen to the other side's arguments, maybe I misunderstood that. But a lot of people both now and throughout history have found this topic relevant and interesting, so it might be worth listening to them and hearing their views.

But what if you don't think rape is morally good despite it being objectively morally good? Would you rape?

 

[LuisDantas]

It's just a hypothetical example of what could be true contingent on such a God existing.

But, moral discernment would be to act in accordance with what the God has willed whether that is follow a list of commands or think for yourself.

The point is there is a correct answer one way or the other, even if humans don't know what it is.

Sorry , but you are just saying dangerous nonsense.

 

[Eli G]

People who want to please God have to abide by the principles that He requires of them to follow.

Independent of God, morality arises when we think about the damage that someone can suffer directly from our action. If someone suffers because of something we do, that action is immoral. If laws were created based on that rule, then we would have to take into account the local culture, what the personalities of the people around us are like. In a country where 13-year-old girls can get married, those girls probably won't suffer because their parents have already arranged a marriage for them at that age, or because an adult wishes to marry them and asks her parents for permission. In that country there would be nothing immoral about that.

If a 13-year-old girl is seduced in a country where such matters have a higher age or other rules of conduct, then everything that was normal in the other country would be immoral in this one.

Is it possible to reach some comprehensive settlement on all issues? I think that's only possible on some issues, but on every topic it's not possible unless there's only one government on the whole earth. So discussing morality in a universal sense is useless...unless you're talking about God and what pleases him or what he doesn't approve of.

 

[Augustus]

Sorry , but you are just saying dangerous nonsense.

Don't be silly, a hypothetical situation based on a imaginary scenario is not "dangerous nonsense".

The idea that an omnimax God could not create "rules" for his creation is nonsense though.

 

[Eli G]

Everything that is created has an instruction manual.

Imagine that an intelligent robot created for a voltage of 110 V wants to connect to a 220 V outlet just because that way it "feels" more free to choose.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

They may have the illusion they do but no two will have the same definition.

Thats game playing. Variations in defining God do not discredit the claim of deity.

 

[Augustus]

This doesn't entail that 'there is no difference between physical/non-physical properties of a Divinely created world'.

It does in terms of one being more objective than the other. The graphics of a game are not more objective than the mechanics.

In what way is it different from me judging everyone's actions?

The same way that me saying I won the lottery is not the same as me actually winning the lottery.

When it comes down to morality, I don't. Because at the end of the day this fixed point of comparison is merely someone's point of view.

If I play a computer game, the damage dealt reflects the game mechanics that actually exist, not what I think the game mechanics should have been had I designed the game.

My point of view makes no difference as the rules were created by someone else who had the ability to do so, not by me as i have no ability to do so.

t is not an objectively wrong move. Rather, it is an illegal move as per the current rules. And just like the rules have been historically changed by people that have not originally designed the game, the rules could also be changed by others. What matters is adherence to those new rules.

Championship boxing matches used to last 15 rounds, they now last 12 rounds, they haven't retroactively reassigned champions based on the new rules.

People don't get the belt because they think they won, but based on who the external arbiter decides who won according to the rules they create.

The only thing that matters is the rules at the time as applied by the authority.

But this is back to your issue of not understanding the difference between a closed situation with an external arbiter who is definitively correct, and an open situation with no arbiter and no fixed rules.

 

[Augustus]

If you like to see debates, here is a debate between an atheist and a believer, both hold the opinion that objective morality is true. The debate is about what offers the best explanation for it. I am just about to watch it myself so don't know if it is good or not, but it might be interesting for you to hear their arguments, since they both agree on that.

If you watch it, can you summarise what the atheist bases his objective morality on?

Usually such arguments axiomatically assume some form of utilitarianism in order to claim 'objectivity' which tends to ruin their argument.

 

[Koldo]

It does in terms of one being more objective than the other. The graphics of a game are not more objective than the mechanics.

How do you figure that? And even if true, how do you figure morality is equivalent to a mechanic?

The same way that me saying I won the lottery is not the same as me actually winning the lottery.

But I wouldn't merely be saying I won the lottery. I would lay down the rules for it and then judge who won.

If I play a computer game, the damage dealt reflects the game mechanics that actually exist, not what I think the game mechanics should have been had I designed the game.

My point of view makes no difference as the rules were created by someone else who had the ability to do so, not by me as i have no ability to do so.

But how do you figure we don't have the ability to do so? What I am saying is that as far as morality goes: perception is conception.

Championship boxing matches used to last 15 rounds, they now last 12 rounds, they haven't retroactively reassigned champions based on the new rules.

People don't get the belt because they think they won, but based on who the external arbiter decides who won according to the rules they create.

The only thing that matters is the rules at the time as applied by the authority.

But this is back to your issue of not understanding the difference between a closed situation with an external arbiter who is definitively correct, and an open situation with no arbiter and no fixed rules.

And who determines who is the authority if not us?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Morality is objective in as much as it demands clarity of concepts

That's a different understanding of what objective morality means than I have. When people talk about objective morality, they seem to usually mean a moral code independent of individual moral judgment.

it could perhaps be argued that evoking a God doesn't necessarily alleviate the issue of subjectivity.

Agreed. All moral intuitions are subjective, even if there is a large degree of interobserver agreement.

So if objective morality doesn't exist, your moral opinion as a person is valid or to be taken seriously when calling another person immoral?

When I call an act immoral, I am saying that it contradicts my moral sense and that I find it repugnant. That's a subjective opinion as are all moral judgments.

If not God's laws, what makes something morally wrong?

It's a personal judgment made by the conscience of those who have one compelling them to behave in certain ways.

Has the invention of atheistic morality become something really beneficial for humanity?

Humanism was the greatest advance in human well-being since fire and the wheel, but one would only say that if here were interested in maximizing human potential and opportunity..

Those of us who study the Scriptures know that it not only teaches us about religious matters, but also about secular and civil matters in a practical and realistic way.

What do your scriptures say about slavery? How about democracy and guaranteed personal freedoms such as freedom or and from religion? Do people have the right to overthrow kings? How about the role of women in society? How about the proper way to view abusive parents? How about stem cell science?

to what extent is an atheist committed to his own moral principles?

That depends on how well his conscience has developed. Moral development can be stunted by a lack of conscience or adopting a received moral code. We see evidence that this has not occurred in those who don't seem to understand what prevents atheists from wilding. Such people don't seem to be aware of this other faculty that people who behave morally without a god belief possess.

God's servants obey biblical principles not precisely because they are necessary for this system of things, or because they are consider legal or illegal in the secular sense, but because in addition to coming from a higher and more righteous source of wisdom, it is what is required of those who will live on earth forever.

I don't use the word moral to refer to behavior that is for personal gain.

Have you heard about the shopping cart test? Do you return your cart to where the market would like you to after you've loaded your groceries into your car? Let's assume that nobody is watching, and there is no external reward or punishment for your choice. We might all have a lazy thought, but a person with a conscience does what most would agree is right because he wants to. Another person might just leave the cart there. Another might return it to get his deposit on it back. And another might want to leave it, but decides that his god wants him to take it back. Were you planning on leaving it there but then noticed that somebody you know is also in the lot and can see you, so you returned it? Which of these are moral choices? Only the first, in my opinion. All of the rest are self-serving.

Everyone knows that if sex is not controlled, societies get sick and can disappear as a result of contagion of all kinds of diseases.

Assuming you mean external controls like rules and laws rather self-control, no, everybody doesn't know that, and there is evidence to the contrary.

The logical way to explain the existence of order in a universe that supposedly arose on its own is that there was a hand behind its raise, ordering everything. That's the logical way to explain it to someone who doesn't have a preconceived idea about the non/existence of a Designer of the universe.

The logical approach is to assemble a list of logically possible alternatives. Intelligence isn't required for order or complexity. And your explanation would not be persuasive unless you could accompany it with a compelling argument. And speaking of closed-mindedness, you seem to have a preconceived notion that an intelligent designer exists. Open-mindedness means entertaining all logical possibilities until one or more can be ruled in or out.

 

[Eli G]

(...)

Thanks for your questions.
Open one thread for each one and I'll participate on them.
Happy busy day

 

[Pete in Panama]

I wouldn't phrase it that way. Nobody is deciding what is moral per se. We are perceiving whether something is moral.



Pretty much, yes.
Not only I don't subscribe to it. I also don't see how it could exist in the first place, nor what would be it's value if it did. Imagine for example that it happens to be the case that killing, theft and lying is always objectively moral. Would you do those things whenever just because it is moral?

Sounds like you're saying that u don't see an objective good/bad true/false right/wrong, and it also sounds like u also don't like the idea that it means one guy (w/ or w/o his buddies) can decide one track is moral and the next guy/group can opt for the oposite track.

Pretty much along the lines of (tho u don't like me saying it this way) everyone can grab'n'stab what ever they can get away w/. As for me I got problems w/ that, my thinking is that it's not a healthy outlook.

 

[Koldo]

Sounds like you're saying that u don't see an objective good/bad true/false right/wrong, and it also sounds like u also don't like the idea that it means one guy (w/ or w/o his buddies) can decide one track is moral and the next guy/group can opt for the oposite track.

Pretty much along the lines of (tho u don't like me saying it this way) everyone can grab'n'stab what ever they can get away w/. As for me I got problems w/ that, my thinking is that it's not a healthy outlook.

It is not that I don't like you saying it that way. It is that it doesn't properly represent what I am saying. I don't see how someone could simply opt for a given moral code. You either perceive something as moral or you don't.

I notice you haven't answered my question: Imagine for example that it happens to be the case that killing, theft and lying is always objectively moral. Would you do those things whenever just because it is moral?

 

[Augustus]

How do you figure that? And even if true, how do you figure morality is equivalent to a mechanic?

Because both are designed, closed systems that reflect whatever their designer wants them to reflect.

But I wouldn't merely be saying I won the lottery. I would lay down the rules for it and then judge who won.

Ok, go and lay down the rule for all of the lotteries in the world and become the richest person who ever lived.

Apparently your belief you can do that is the same as actually being able to do that.

But how do you figure we don't have the ability to do so? What I am saying is that as far as morality goes: perception is conception.

In the world we live in, yes.

In a hypothetical designed and closed world with an external arbiter, God, of course not.

You seem unable to conceptualise what an actual God existing would mean and why it would be different.

Why do you think an omnimax God cannot create rules for their creation? Do you think a video games designer can create mechanics for their creation? Is a video games designer more powerful than an omnimax god? Why?

And who determines who is the authority if not us?

God of course.

Same as the lottery provider determines the rules or a game designer determines the mechanics.

You can't simply declare yourself the authority on who wins the lottery and change reality based on your wishful thinking.

 

[Koldo]

Because both are designed, closed systems that reflect whatever their designer wants them to reflect.

In what sense would morality be present in the system itself in the first place?

We can say that certain mechanic exists by describing what it does when present and it's effect is perceptible, at least in principle.

Ok, go and lay down the rule for all of the lotteries in the world and become the richest person who ever lived.

Apparently your belief you can do that is the same as actually being able to do that.

God of course.

Same as the lottery provider determines the rules or a game designer determines the mechanics.

You can't simply declare yourself the authority in who wins the lottery and change reality based on your wishful thinking.

I can't change the rules of those lotteries. But I can create a new lottery with new rules and if everyone decides to play only in my lottery it becomes the only lottery that matters. Plus, an older lottery is not in any way more valid than a newer lottery. Multiple lotteries can exist at the same time. God's lottery matter as much as anyone else's.

In the world we live in, yes.

In a hypothetical designed and closed world with an external arbiter, God, of course not.

You seem unable to conceptualise what an actual God existing would mean and why it would be different.

Why do you think an omnimax God cannot create rules for their creation? Do you think a video games designer can create mechanics for their creation? Is a video games designer more powerful than an omnimax god?

It is important to distinguish between physical laws that would be akin to video game mechanics and morality. Much like a game designer, God can create mechanics. Morality is another beast though. It doesn't describe how objects behave. It is about how they should behave according to a certain standard.

 

[Nimos]

There is nothing even remotely suggesting God is in charge of morality.

No, but the idea of God is capable of it as a potential agent for objective morality. A human is not. Whether God exists or not, is irrelevant when the topic is about whether objective morality gives a foundation for moral judgement, whereas subjective morality doesn't.

Whether God exists or not is another topic.

But what if you don't think rape is morally good despite it being objectively morally good? Would you rape?

Most likely not. But I think it is easier to twist it around so it fits actual morality as we experience it:

Would you murder someone if you didn't think it was morally wrong?

And my answer to that would be that you would most likely see little issues with murdering someone. But in that case, you would probably fall into the category of being a psychopath. But I fail to see how that is relevant in regard to objective and subjective morality?

 

[Nimos]

If you watch it, can you summarise what the atheist bases his objective morality on?

Usually such arguments axiomatically assume some form of utilitarianism in order to claim 'objectivity' which tends to ruin their argument.

That is correct, which is also one of my main objections to objective morality, especially when atheists support this, as they do not seem to be able to explain what this "agent" is supposed to be. And the atheist speaker does also rely on an unexplained axiom, and therefore, in my opinion, his argument is not any better than that of the believer.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're not getting it.
I agree with that definition. The problem here is what actually constitutes being moral or immoral. Right or wrong. Goodness or badness. What is the difference between those things. How do you define good and bad? How do you distinguish between them.

That's what this is about. How to tell the difference. Not how many synonyms can I list.

I say the difference between them is the how they harm or benefit the overall well-being -in the broadest sense- of sentient creatures and / or groups / societies.

Yes, I can agree with that. What is good or bad behavior is related to how that behavior causes harm or benefit to the overall well-being -in the broadest sense- of sentient creatures and / or groups / societies.

So you agree with the standard I'm proposing?

Yes, as I said above.

When I refer to well-being, I'm talking about the full package. Psychology included.
And what I meant with the health/sick analogy is not that it's the same (as if "unhappiness" is caused by a virus or something lol), but rather in the sense of we can tell the difference - regardless of underlying causes.

Expression and body language informs us in both cases that there is suffering going on.
You mostly can tell the difference between a happy and an unhappy person, let alone a deeply depressed one. Psychological suffering is for the most part quite recognizable.

So do you think there is something morally wrong with a person being unhappy?
Do you connect psychological suffering with morality? Is a depressed person immoral because they suffer?

Yes, I agree.
At which point in these arguments do you need to refer to these Messenger(s) of God(s) to come to those conclusions?

I don't need to refer to them to come to these conclusions.

I just gave you one. And you even acknowledged that it's the standard you use yourself also.

Well-being = good
suffering = bad

From there, you can have an objective reasoned morality.

No, I did not say that is the 'standard' that I use.

I said:
My standard of measurement for moral behavior is what the Messengers revealed.

Goodness of character or right behavior can reduce suffering for individuals and society.
Wrong behavior or badness of character increases suffering for individuals and society.

Goodness of character or right behavior increases well-being for individuals and society.
Wrong behavior or badness of character reduces well-being for individuals and society.​

No, I do not agree with:
Well-being = good
suffering = bad

Not only is that overly simplistic, it is saying that a person is 'bad' because they are suffering and 'good' because they are happy, and I do not believe happiness and suffering have anything to do with morality.

Good character reduces suffering and increases well-being, and bad character increases suffering and decreases well-being, but a moral person with good character can suffer as much as an immoral person with bad character, and an immoral person with bad character can have as much well-being as much as a moral person with good character.

Because we can distinguish suffering from well-being, as you also seem to agree to, we can say that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions. And whether it's right or wrong will not be determined by our mere subjective opinions. It will instead be determined by as objective as can be facts that distinguish well-being from suffering.

It will be determined by as objective as can be facts that distinguish right from wrong, as revealed in religion and set down in courts of law.

Hitting someone in the face with a bat for no reason, is always going to be bad. Saying it is moral behavior is a demonstrably wrong answer.

And I don't require appeal to any gods or whatever to come to that objective conclusion.

So how is a religion or appeal to gods or messengers required exactly?

Religion is not required to know that a person causing harm to another person is always wrong, but that has been set down by religion throughout the ages.

Then what does?

Tell me, what if the adultery act was with mutual consent?
What if it doesn't cause any suffering at all and was planned and agreed upon by all parties involved?
Would it still be immoral?

If yes: explain why.

Yes, it would still be immoral because that was set down in the Law of God.

I'm sure the one being killed doesn't enjoy being killed.

Nor does the spouse being cheated on enjoy being cheated upon.

The murdered and all his/her loved-ones would have

As would the spouse who is cheated on suffer.

Every human has standards. Except - maybe - extreme cases of psychopathy / sociopathy.

Sure, everyone has standards, but they are all different, unless they follow the standards of a religion.

I have yet to see you require the invocation of such to make a moral point.

Every example you gave so far where you made a moral argument to judge something good or bad, you used the secular standard of well-being / suffering to distinguish between right and wrong behavior.

Show me an example where you can't get to a proper conclusion using the secular standard, but where you can using an appeal to supposed divine authority.

The secular standard of good and bad was derived from the religious standard, and courts of law do not use well-being / suffering to distinguish between right and wrong behavior.

The secular standard IS the religious standard, and it goes all the way back to the Ten Commandments.
In case you have not noticed, 84 percent of the world population has a faith.