Morality: Do you agree

[Pete in Panama]

What thinking tools do you want to use on this discussion? Go ahead.

It's what I was talking about in the post where u responded in your post #384 and said--

And therefore...?

I had been explaining that logic did not apply to our question and that we were approaching the point where intuition would be more useful.

There are a number of useful tools for determining what is true. Besides logic, there is pragmatism (does it work?) intuition (does it feel right?), popularity (everyone says so it must be true), and the list goes on and on. I like logic as u do but when I find myself in a contest w/ someone where we're each building conflicting elaborate logical structures, I have to step back and think.

My finding that I need to repeat myself is getting old.

 

[Koldo]

It's what I was talking about in the post where u responded in your post #384 and said--I had been explaining that logic did not apply to our question and that we were approaching the point where intuition would be more useful.

There are a number of useful tools for determining what is true. Besides logic, there is pragmatism (does it work?) intuition (does it feel right?), popularity (everyone says so it must be true), and the list goes on and on. I like logic as u do but when I find myself in a contest w/ someone where we're each building conflicting elaborate logical structures, I have to step back and think.

My finding that I need to repeat myself is getting old.

I have been waiting for you to actually employ your tool of preference in this conversation so we can have a proper debate about it. Will you?

 

[Nimos]

I have no idea what you mean by 'merely as being what is claimed to be'.

What I mean is that a religious person, let's say a Christian, will point to the bible or whatever and say that God is this, that and that. We don't have to accept the premise as being true, simply what the Christian claim it to be, for the sake of the debate.

For instance, in the debate between the atheist and the Muslim, the debate is not about whether God exists or not, but about morality. The atheist don't have to accept the premise that God exists, only that the Muslim is arguing from the position that God does. This is purely to avoid the debate instantly turning into the atheist demanding evidence for God and so the focus can stay on the topic of morality. Maybe that is already implied in the word premise, I'm not sure.

What do you mean by 'foundation' here?

Foundation in this case refers to which offers the best explanation in regard to the speaker's position. The religious person thinks that God gives the best explanation for objective morality and the atheist that God is not required but that it could be something natural and that it best explains objective morality.

A person like me, which is in support of subjective morality, would argue against both of them and that there is no/little foundation for objective morality and that subjective morality offers the best explanation.

 

[F1fan]

You do not know that. You just assume that.

Sorry, man. I am going based on what your fellow Muslim extremists have asserted is their moral duty against their enemies. I understand you want to push their motives onto my assumption, but I did not assume their claims and beliefs. Osama bin Laden was very clear in his aims to make 9-11 happen. I understand it is your religion and you have a motive to defend it, but it has nothing to do with what we all are aware of.

Why is it that only a handful of Muslims are guilty of atrocities?

The Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeda, among others, are more than a handful. They number in the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. Why are you trying to minimize their number?

Why aren't the majority "obeying God"?

Why aren't aren't ALL Muslims obedient to God if God exists and is authoritative?

Why is it that not only Muslims are guilty of atrocities?

Oh tehre are plenty of atrocities to go around. But Christianbs exist in mostly secular nations so have secular laws that keep them in line. There are plenty of crimes committed by Christian extremists. I would suggest the Jan 6 riots were largely Christian extremists. I don't have data, but given so many evangelicals voted for Trump it is a fair assumption. Feel better?

No .. Islam is not the only thing that shapes people's world views.

Right, there are so many other religions and other versions of gods. Feel better?

"critical thinkers" = atheists, in your opinion.
That's just arrogance.

These are your words, I never claimed this. There are critical thinkers who are also reliugious to some degree, but they are smart to limit their contributions. It is a correlation that more successful critical thinkers are also atheists.

What, by saying that we are all capable of evil, regardless of religion?

Being religious doesn't vrevent people from being evil, and even exagerates their evil. I suggest skill at critical thinking allows a person a moral advantage because they will be more likley to reason through religious motives to harm others.

Are you trying to say that "critical thinkers" aka atheists, do not commit atrocities, while Muslims do?
What nonsense..

An atheist won't be murdering because it is God's will, as your fellow Muslims do. Exlpain why your fellow Muslims do it, and don't accept the murders as being their own acts.

 

[Augustus]

It is not the word that matters here, but what it represents.
Let's say that God decides to create a world where the word (moral) 'good' represents in that world what the word 'tree' represent in ours. If we were to look at that world we would see a lot of trees (as per our usual understanding of what a tree is), could we then say that God created a lot of moral good in that world? Sure, by using the word 'good' as used in that world... But the content of that statement would be something completely different if we were to say the same thing about our world. Because words are like fingers pointing to something, and we must not mistake the finger (the word) with the thing being pointed by it (the content).

You are conflating changing a referent (tree) for a symbol (the letters: moral) with evaluating the standards for assigning the quality of moral to specific actions.

The word still means the same in the latter regardless of what values are seen as good.

When we talk about moral good in our world, we are talking about how people should behave according to our perception of what is the proper behavior.

No we are talking about what constitutes proper behaviour and what grounds there are for claiming such things as proper and desirable.

It exists as a consequence of his very own perception of how people should behave, and as a consequence of creating people able to have this kind of perception.

You still seem to be treating God as a person, not an infinite force.

Literally everything exists because of his “perception”. There is no way to escape this.

A human being objective basically means seeing it as God intended.

All that exists in reality is what God made.

 

[Koldo]

You are conflating changing a referent (tree) for a symbol (the letters: moral) with evaluating the standards for assigning the quality of moral to specific actions.

The word still means the same in the latter regardless of what values are seen as good.

Please do elaborate. I am not certain I understood this part of your post.

No we are talking about what constitutes proper behaviour and what grounds there are for claiming such things as proper and desirable.

Sure. What I was saying is that what grounds how people should behave is (moral) perception.

You still seem to be treating God as a person, not an infinite force.

Literally everything exists because of his “perception”. There is no way to escape this.

A human being objective basically means seeing it as God intended.

All that exists in reality is what God made.

Why would everything exist because of his perception? Are you saying that if God ceased to exist nothing would exist?

 

[Eli G]

In a general sense, I think inmoral to one person is whatever breaks his own principles. Wasn't him the one who chose/created/acepted them?
Then why he breaks them?

 

[Koldo]

What I mean is that a religious person, let's say a Christian, will point to the bible or whatever and say that God is this, that and that. We don't have to accept the premise as being true, simply what the Christian claim it to be, for the sake of the debate.

For instance, in the debate between the atheist and the Muslim, the debate is not about whether God exists or not, but about morality. The atheist don't have to accept the premise that God exists, only that the Muslim is arguing from the position that God does. This is purely to avoid the debate instantly turning into the atheist demanding evidence for God and so the focus can stay on the topic of morality. Maybe that is already implied in the word premise, I'm not sure.

That is exactly what I call accepting the premise for the sake of the argument. If you accept the premise that God exists, created and has sovereignty over morality, there really isn't anything to debate. Is there?

Foundation in this case refers to which offers the best explanation in regard to the speaker's position. The religious person thinks that God gives the best explanation for objective morality and the atheist that God is not required but that it could be something natural and that it best explains objective morality.

A person like me, which is in support of subjective morality, would argue against both of them and that there is no/little foundation for objective morality and that subjective morality offers the best explanation.

A better explanation in what sense if both sides don't even agree with what constitutes an objective morality?

Clearly the atheist side won't agree that objective morality is God's will.

 

[muhammad_isa]

An atheist won't be murdering because it is God's will, as your fellow Muslims do..

Terrorist behaviour is not limited to Muslims.
I do not believe that a Muslim kills themselves and others with bombs, because they believe that they will go to paradise.

I understand that the perpetrators of 9/11 were seen drinking in a pub the day before. I suppose you think it was some sort of cover for their political activities.

Exlpain why your fellow Muslims do it, and don't accept the murders as being their own acts.

Many criminals are unrepentant.
..and God is aware of peoples' intentions, and whether they are a criminal or not.
Acts of war on civilians is not legal warfare .. it has become more complicated since the age of aerial bombardment.
Many people see it as "tit-for-tat".

What a world !
..you see it as religion at fault .. I see it as the opposite problem
A world in which some nations prosper, whilst others suffer.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Your answer doesn't lead to the conclusion that the one responsible for all we see is also able to create objective morality.

Of course it does .. it is objective, for the very fact that God is not a human being.
Morality does not apply to God .. He is not a human being.
He cannot be guilty of sexual misbehaviour or murder.
He cannot be guilty of starting a war etc. etc.

 

[Koldo]

Of course it does .. it is objective, for the very fact that God is not a human being.
Morality does not apply to God .. He is not a human being.
He cannot be guilty of sexual misbehaviour or murder.
He cannot be guilty of starting a war etc. etc.

How does not being a human being entail being objective... exactly?

Who said morality is only applicable to humans?

 

[Nimos]

That is exactly what I call accepting the premise for the sake of the argument. If you accept the premise that God exists, created and has sovereignty over morality, there really isn't anything to debate. Is there?

As I said it is not about acknowledging that God exists and it doesn't remove the burden of proof from the religious person. But rather to accept the basis for which someone makes their argument.

Let's turn it around for a second.

Neither of us knows or can disprove God, so that is our default position. Assume that we both agreed that objective morality was true, it must have a natural explanation. Like we refuse the premise of God due to lack of evidence, anyone could equally refuse our premise that it is a natural cause.

The fact is that neither we nor the religious person are certain about our claims, but we are both convinced that objective morality exists and is what we want to debate. So he accepts our premise and we his and then we try to figure out which of these makes for the most plausible explanation for objective morality.

If the religious person accepted our premise, then he could say the same as you, that there is nothing to debate, because God doesn't exist. And then we are not talking about morality anymore but whether God exist or not.

A better explanation in what sense if both sides don't even agree with what constitutes an objective morality?

Both agree on there being objective morality but disagree on what offers the best explanation.

Clearly the atheist side won't agree that objective morality is God's will.

Of course not, he believes that his explanation is the best one. But the fact is that people disagree about things, that is why we debate in the first place.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Who said morality is only applicable to humans?

Whom or what do you want it to apply to?

 

[Pete in Panama]

I have been waiting for you to actually employ your tool of preference in this conversation so we can have a proper debate about it. Will you?

You're raising an extremely important point and it explains everything.

You want "a proper debate". There's nothing wrong w/ that, a lot of good can come from a reasoned debate and it presents a lot of thought and yields much to be learned. What's happening here is I'm not debating, I'm searching for the truth. Part of the reason I don't debate is because I'm too busy truth-searching, and another reason I don't debate is because I'm not very good at it.

To me the question of whether ultimate values are absolute is profoundly important, and if in the future ur ever interested in exploring it pse let me know --you think about this stuff & I want ur input. Unfortunately I can't help u out w/ debating.

Thanks for ur time tho.

 

[Trailblazer]

Neither of us knows or can disprove God, so that is our default position. Assume that we both agreed that objective morality was true, it must have a natural explanation.

Something just popped into my head so I want to write it down before I forget it.

As a believer I believe there is an objective morality and that is written in God's Laws, but how those Laws are applied is not exactly the same in all humans, so there is also a subjective morality.

Baha'u'llah wrote that there is the 'letter of the law' as well as the 'spirit of the law.' That means a person might outwardly fail to observe a certain law but if his heart was in the right place and he observed the law in spirit, in God's eyes he was observing it. The converse also applies: A person might outwardly observe certain laws, but if not observed in the right spirit, in God's eyes he was not really observing it. This is better known as 'going through the motions.'

 

[Koldo]

Whom or what do you want it to apply to?

Every single moral agent.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Every single moral agent.

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.

..so what persons are you referring to, other than human beings?

 

[Augustus]

Please do elaborate. I am not certain I understood this part of your post.

Words are 'signs' and with a few minor exceptions (onomatopoeia, metaphor) have a purely arbitrary 'symbolic' relationship with that which they refer to, the 'referent'.

So the words tree, arbe, arvore, boom, pohon, etc. all have the same referent - the tall plant with woody texture we know as a tree.

If we call a tree "morality" that is just creating an new arbitrary 'symbolic' relationship between the letters m.o.r.a.l.i.t.y. and the tall plant with woody texture we know as a tree. We have assigned a new referent to the word.

For us the word morality has the referent - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

That is what it has been used to mean in all examples made in this thread, including all hypotheticals.

Stating that morality can be objective or that this hypothetical God could declare rape a moral 'good' would not change the meaning of any words, so your example was conflating changing the meaning of a word, with changing the value judgement required to make something a 'good' but leaving the meaning unchanged.

Sure. What I was saying is that what grounds how people should behave is (moral) perception.

For humans, yes. For the God, then these are moral facts that apply to the humans he created in the closed system he created.

Why would everything exist because of his perception? Are you saying that if God ceased to exist nothing would exist?

Yes, because everything is created and maintained by the God.

 

[vulcanlogician]

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.

..so what persons are you referring to, other than human beings?

Could be any hypothetical being. I can't speak for Koldo's answer, but that would be any being with the mental capacity to understand moral choices. If we were to discover intelligent aliens one day, it is possible that they could qualify as moral agents. So could an advanced AI (although our technology is nowhere near that level).

Likewise, some human beings might NOT qualify as moral agents. People who have mental disorders that temporarily or permanently suspend their ability to properly understand their surroundings or properly tell right from wrong are NOT moral agents, and thus can bear no moral responsibility.

 

[Koldo]

As I said it is not about acknowledging that God exists and it doesn't remove the burden of proof from the religious person. But rather to accept the basis for which someone makes their argument.

Let's turn it around for a second.

Neither of us knows or can disprove God, so that is our default position. Assume that we both agreed that objective morality was true, it must have a natural explanation. Like we refuse the premise of God due to lack of evidence, anyone could equally refuse our premise that it is a natural cause.

The fact is that neither we nor the religious person are certain about our claims, but we are both convinced that objective morality exists and is what we want to debate. So he accepts our premise and we his and then we try to figure out which of these makes for the most plausible explanation for objective morality.

If the religious person accepted our premise, then he could say the same as you, that there is nothing to debate, because God doesn't exist. And then we are not talking about morality anymore but whether God exist or not.

I fully understand that if we reject the premise that God exists, there is no debate to be had about morality since we are going to have to debate the existence of God. But if you go further than that and also accept that God has sovereignty over morality, there is no debate to be had.

Both agree on there being objective morality but disagree on what offers the best explanation.

Not if they disagree about what constitutes objective morality.

Of course not, he believes that his explanation is the best one. But the fact is that people disagree about things, that is why we debate in the first place.

Not just the explanation is distinct, the thing in itself is different. God's Will in theism is not (necessarily) merely the explanation for objective morality, it is morality in itself.