Morality: Do you agree

[Koldo]

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?

"In philosophy, morally, a being is a person if they’re a moral agent, making moral judgements and taking moral actions. Metaphysically, the set of criteria for personhood include rationality or logical reasoning, consciousness, self-consciousness, use of language, ability to initiate action, moral agency (again) and intelligence." - Source

 

[Nimos]

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.

That is a given

Not if they disagree about what constitutes objective morality.

Sure, the definition of it has to be agreed on.

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.

Yeah, but I don't really think that makes a difference, because it would apply to us either way.

 

[Nimos]

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.'

I'm not really sure that makes sense in my view.

What does it mean to "not observe something in the right spirit"?

Let's say someone decides to commit a murder, either the person knows that it is immoral to do so or they don't. If they go through with it, clearly they have decided that the murder is more important than being moral. So they did observe it in the "right spirit" they just ignored it. Alternatively, the person doesn't know that they are doing something wrong in which case it would be difficult or somewhat unfair to judge them for doing something immoral.

But maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean, you know we atheists don't work well with the word "spirit".

 

[Pete in Panama]

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.



Not if they disagree about what constitutes objective morality.



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.

A thought came into my head, please tell me if you'd subscribe to the statement "there are no absolutes", and are u aware that the statement itself is an absolute?

 

[Koldo]

A thought came into my head, please tell me if you'd subscribe to the statement "there are no absolutes", and are u aware that the statement itself is an absolute?

No, I don't subscribe to that statement.

 

[Koldo]

That is a given


Sure, the definition of it has to be agreed on.


Yeah, but I don't really think that makes a difference, because it would apply to us either way.

It does make a difference, because the two people in the debate would have different definitions for the central part of the debate.

 

[Nimos]

It does make a difference, because the two people in the debate would have different definitions for the central part of the debate.

I don't see why?

If objective morality exists, does it matter if God is behind it or some other thing that decides it? As it is now at least, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

[Koldo]

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.

You have asked what I think 'good' means other than what God decided what it means.
If God were to control the meaning of the word 'good', we would be talking about something else entirely, and not that which we call 'good' as of now. Given your answer now though, it seems what you actually wanted to ask is what I think is the proper value judgment, other than God's, when determining what is 'good', is that correct?

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

Nope. To everyone.

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

Wait. This is not necessarily the case in theism. What kind of monism do you have in mind?

 

[Koldo]

I don't see why?

If objective morality exists, does it matter if God is behind it or some other thing that decides it? As it is now at least, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

The theist could argue that objective morality is equal to God's will, and that whatever is not equal to God's will can not be objective morality. This means that whatever the atheist is calling objective morality is a misnomer, for we can not talk about objective morality if there is no God. Therefore, you can't have a source for objective morality that is not God's will itself. In other words, whatever the atheist calls objective morality is nothing more, to the theist, than an attempt at trying to present moral relativism as if it were objective morality.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's the part that was apparently "necessary" that I was asking about.
What was it that was "necessary"?

Because I just gave you a model that doesn't require any "messengers" and you seemed to agree to it.
So what was "necessary"?

What was necessary were God's Laws that were set down by the Messengers of God.
That is why I said "You don't need Messengers now because they already came and revealed what was necessary."

When is it necessary and why?

It is necessary when people are not moral thus they need to know what the Messenger revealed about morality and follow it.

Dear lord....

Well, I can pretty much guarantee you that the vast majority of humans wouldn't enjoy being in pain - mentally or physically.

And those that would enjoy that, likely will take themselves out of the gene pool soon enough.

That is true, most people do not like physical pain or mental anguish. My point was that it is impossible to know what would have happened with human morality if Messengers had never come to earth.

You do?
Can you apply the model of "suffering = bad; well-being = good" to it and explain why it's immoral in the example I gave you? Where it's with mutual consent and no physical are emotional harm is present in any way, with all parties understanding and agreeing that it is what it is?

I believe that adultery is immoral since it is contrary to the Law of God.
You see, this is why we need an objective standard, because without one it is "anything goes" as long as it "feels good."
With no secular laws society would be a bigger mess than it is. Society is a mess because most people don't follow God's laws pertaining to sexuality, since sex is not deemed criminal as long as it is between two (or more) consenting adults.

Did you read the bible?

Deuteronomy 20:16-18

I can read it but that does not mean I believe that God did those things. Do you?

And even if you don't accept that as a "message" from a "messenger", it's not a moot point.
Because it is about the moral compass you subscribe to.

When you subscribe to "divine command theory" morality, then whatever the authority says is good, is good. What it says is bad, is bad. And you don't even know why.

What God says is good, is good and what it says is bad, and I do know why.

Just like I am certain that you can't properly explain, using the model of well-being, why adultery is immoral in my example.

Instead it's just "because god says so".

Adultery is immoral becaue it hurts people and destroys families. Why should there be 'special exceptions' to God's Laws? Are there exceptions made to secular laws when it comes to murder or other crimes?

So, if you believe that your god commands you to go on a killing spree, then in your mind, going on a killing spree is a moral duty.

But God made no such command so it is a moot point.

This is why this type of moral compass is so fubar. It can take a good person and make that person do the most horrible stuff imaginable, and get that person to think it is actually engaging in a righteous moral duty.

Going on a killing spree is an extreme example (although it's not hard to come up with real-life examples - you already have at least one in mind right now, I'm sure). But it also translates to smaller stuff. This is why homophobia is so persistent. This is why stem cell research is held back. This is why women don't have access to proper health care abortion.

The unquestionable acceptance of moral judgements, which can't properly be reasoned using an actual moral standard as in the given model, will always end badly sooner or later.

The moral judgments of God all have reason behind them. You might not agree with the reasoning, but I do not agree with some of the reasoning of those who disagree with God's laws.

Again, we go back to: What is the standard, who sets, it and why are they an authority on morality?
Who decides what is right or wrong or what reasoning is correct?

The thing is though.... we share living space. We share a society. Behavior of my fellow citizens reflect back on society, peers and perhaps myself.

So whatever other people's moral standards are, can potentially affect me.
If fellow citizens state like you that they follow a "divine command theory" morality, then I am a bit worried. Because it's not a reasoned morality. It's just obedience to whatever the perceived authority is. A morality that isn't reasoned is not reasonable.

What is reasonable to one person is not necessarily reasonable to another person, so reasonableness is highly subjective.

I believe that religion offers a reasoned morality and it is also obedience to God as the authority.
The caveat is that one must be following the 'current' religion of God that has the updates that apply to modern times, not a religion that was revealed for people who lived thousands of years ago.

Do you think someone will disagree with "well-being = good; suffering = bad"?

As I said before that is overly simplistic. Well-being is generally good depending upon how you define it, but suffering is not always bad since people learn and grow stronger through suffering. I think w should try to mitigate suffering when we can but we cannot eliminate all suffering as it is part of living in a material world.

There is an overlap, but no.
The overlap is also not the result of "god said so". But rather because those things can be actual reasoned. Like why murder is wrong.

There are no laws against working on the sabbath. There are no laws against blasphemy. There are no laws against mutual consent swinging (adultery). A married couple going to a swing club with mutual consent is not illegal or a crime.

In short: the things that "god says" supposedly that are NOT incorporated into secular morality, are things that can't be concluded through reason.

The reason that some of God's laws related to sexual behavior are not incorporated into secular law is because they could never be enforced. Laws prohibiting working on the sabbath and laws against blasphemy could never be enforced since not everyone in society adheres to religions that have these laws.

Thus the reason they are not incorporated into secular morality is because they could never be enforced.

Not because those laws "would never be enforceable".
Those laws used to exist back in the day, and they still exists in many hellholes around the world.
The reason they don't exist anymore in humanist secular democracies, is because there is no reasonable argument to be made for why it shouldn't be allowed.

Realistically, in a democracy, laws that force people to believe in God and not blaspheme and laws that prohibit adultery could never be enforced even if a reasonable argument could be made for these.

Yes. And a proper reasoned argument can be made for it.
And then there's the beach, where such rules are seriously loosened up.
And then there's nude beaches, where... well, you know off course.

There's proper reasoning for why it is so.
In secular humanism, there never is justification consisting of only "...because X said so".
If in a moral debate, that is offered as the "reason", then you pretty much lose the debate automatically. It means you have nothing.

In secular humanism, it is "because secular humanists say so" and there is no other basis for legitimizing certain behaviors and calling them moral. What it amounts to is that you have nothing except a personal opinion as to what should be considered moral. By contrast, I have a belief regarding what is moral which is based upon God's laws. Why is your opinion superior to my belief? Because you say so?

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not really sure that makes sense in my view.

What does it mean to "not observe something in the right spirit"?

Let's say someone decides to commit a murder, either the person knows that it is immoral to do so or they don't. If they go through with it, clearly they have decided that the murder is more important than being moral. So they did observe it in the "right spirit" they just ignored it. Alternatively, the person doesn't know that they are doing something wrong in which case it would be difficult or somewhat unfair to judge them for doing something immoral.

But maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean, you know we atheists don't work well with the word "spirit".

Sorry Nimos, I threw you a curve ball without explaining where it was coming from.
When I compared the 'letter of the law' to the 'spirit of the law' I was only referring to laws that affect the individual believer, such as prayer and fasting. I was not referring to laws against murder and other acts that affect other people. If a person commits a murder or rape that person knows that is hurting other people, so it doesn't matter what spirit it is committed in. It is wrong in the eyes of God.

By contrast, there are other laws that only affect the individual believer. For example, a Baha'i might outwardly observe certain laws such as saying their Obligatory Prayer but if they are not sincere and believing the words in their heart then they are not saying the prayer in the right spirit, so in God's eyes they are not really observing it, they are just 'going through the motions' and obeying the law out of obligation. The law should be obeyed because we are enjoined to be obedient to God and love His Laws, not out of fear.

“Think not”, is Bahá’u’lláh’s own assertion, “that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay, rather, We have unsealed the choice Wine with the fingers of might and power.” His Book of Laws is His “weightiest testimony unto all people, and the proof of the All-Merciful unto all who are in heaven and all who are on earth”.
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 3

 

[Augustus]

You have asked what I think 'good' means other than what God decided what it means.
If God were to control the meaning of the word 'good', we would be talking about something else entirely, and not that which we call 'good' as of now. Given your answer now though, it seems what you actually wanted to ask is what I think is the proper value judgment, other than God's, when determining what is 'good', is that correct?

Yes, whatever the criteria for an action being deemed 'good' or 'bad'.

Good= to behave morally, to behave morally = to act in accordance with God's will

These are concepts created by the God to mean just that.

Nope. To everyone.

Gods don't "perceive" as they are eternally omniscient. They don't really have "senses" or the need to become aware of something via the senses.

They know everything that has or will happen and always have done.

Wait. This is not necessarily the case in theism. What kind of monism do you have in mind?

Given the question is can morality be objective, whatever hypothetical God concept best supports this.

For classical monotheism, it's not even possible for the God to stop existing AFAIK.

 

[Nimos]

Sorry Nimos, I threw you a curve ball without explaining where it was coming from.

Ok I guess that makes a bit more sense

 

[Pete in Panama]

No, I don't subscribe to that statement.

huh. That would mean that you believe that there ARE absolutes. What are they?

Then again, you may be just disagreeing w/ me for the sake of disagreeing w/ me...

 

[Koldo]

huh. That would mean that you believe that there ARE absolutes. What are they?

Then again, you may be just disagreeing w/ me for the sake of disagreeing w/ me...

I don't understand. Where are you headed with this?

 

[Koldo]

Yes, whatever the criteria for an action being deemed 'good' or 'bad'.

Good= to behave morally, to behave morally = to act in accordance with God's will

These are concepts created by the God to mean just that.

It's a value judgment, which means it depends on one's standards. The standards from the one who is making the value judgment.

Gods don't "perceive" as they are eternally omniscient. They don't really have "senses" or the need to become aware of something via the senses.

They know everything that has or will happen and always have done.

When I refer to perception on this topic, I am not talking about senses per se. I am definitely not saying there is a moral sight of some kind. I am referring to the way someone comprehends/thinks of something.

Given the question is can morality be objective, whatever hypothetical God concept best supports this.

For classical monotheism, it's not even possible for the God to stop existing AFAIK.

I am not sure you understood my question. I am asking what kind of ontology you have in mind when you say that if God were to cease to exist there would be nothing left.

Certainly it must be some kind of monism, since dualism and pluralism are not compatible with your stance. Are you thinking of mental monism, neutral monism, or what?

 

[Augustus]

It's a value judgment, which means it depends on one's standards. The standards from the one who is making the value judgment.

Gods don't make value judgements. The concepts themselves are created by the God, along with the standards.

What would you think God's concept of morality would be?

When I refer to perception on this topic, I am not talking about senses per se. I am definitely not saying there is a moral sight of some kind. I am referring to the way someone comprehends/thinks of something.

Gods don't "comprehend" or "think of" things by making experience based value judgements.

Humans would have a moral sense created by God for a purpose.

What do you think this purpose would be?

I am not sure you understood my question. I am asking what kind of ontology you have in mind when you say that if God were to cease to exist there would be nothing left.

Certainly it must be some kind of monism, since dualism and pluralism are not compatible with your stance. Are you thinking of mental monism, neutral monism, or what?

No, it does not have to be a kind of monism. But it is largely irrelevant what specific theological construct we use.

Some beliefs people hold:

1. God cannot stop existing
2. The world is dependent on God for its continued existence
3. God and the world are indivisible

Unless your argument is that no one believes any of the above regarding an omnimax God, then it is irrelevant to the topic.

The point is there is no situation where the world exists and God doesn't. Of we are discussing whether or not objective morality is possible, we take the situation that best supports the premise.

 

[Koldo]

Gods don't make value judgements.

I would like see how exactly you have reached this conclusion. What are the premises?

The concepts themselves are created by the God, along with the standards.

What would you think God's concept of morality would be?

Since we also create standards...
Why would it matter?

Gods don't "comprehend" or "think of" things by making experience based value judgements.

Who said anything about "experience based"?

Humans would have a moral sense created by God for a purpose.

What do you think this purpose would be?

It could be anything, or nothing in particular.

No, it does not have to be a kind of monism.

It does, because in dualism and pluralism it would be incorrect to state that God maintains the world as you have said. Ontological independence is exactly what distinguishes ontological substances.

But it is largely irrelevant what specific theological construct we use.

Some beliefs people hold:

1. God cannot stop existing
2. The world is dependent on God for its continued existence
3. God and the world are indivisible

Unless your argument is that no one believes any of the above regarding an omnimax God, then it is irrelevant to the topic.

The point is there is no situation where the world exists and God doesn't. Of we are discussing whether or not objective morality is possible, we take the situation that best supports the premise.

I find it important to understand where you are coming from, since different arguments would be applicable depending on your position. You have said that everything exists because of God's perception. I am trying to figure out what exactly that means to you. You then said that God created and maintains everything. But what exactly does 'maintain' mean here? This is why I am asking from what ontological ground you are talking.

 

[Augustus]

I find it important to understand where you are coming from, since different arguments would be applicable depending on your position. You have said that everything exists because of God's perception. I am trying to figure out what exactly that means to you. You then said that God created and maintains everything. But what exactly does 'maintain' mean here? This is why I am asking from what ontological ground you are talking.

While I don't really see why it changes anything regarding such a general argument, take an occasionalist theology then. There is no secondary causality, all causes are manifestations of god's will. Every process of interaction is directly dependent on the existence of God

God created everything for a purpose, and everything that exists or happens is a result of this.

That a tree exists is no more 'objective' than morality existing because God creating everything for a purpose, and continues to exist only as a manifestation of his will.

I would like see how exactly you have reached this conclusion. What are the premises?

Because the God created things for a purpose, and thus there is no "A ought to be more valued than B" just what is more valued according to the rules of the universe.

Measuring against a definitive standard is not a value judgement as this requires there to be other potential answers.

It's no more a values judgement than measuring water in a jug.

Since we also create standards...
Why would it matter?

I could say 1/2 a litre has a greater volume than 1 litre, that wouldn't make measuring water "subjective" because I've created a new standard.

It could be anything, or nothing in particular.

You don't think a God could create morality specifically as a test for those deserving reward?

 

[Nimos]

The theist could argue that objective morality is equal to God's will, and that whatever is not equal to God's will can not be objective morality. This means that whatever the atheist is calling objective morality is a misnomer, for we can not talk about objective morality if there is no God. Therefore, you can't have a source for objective morality that is not God's will itself. In other words, whatever the atheist calls objective morality is nothing more, to the theist, than an attempt at trying to present moral relativism as if it were objective morality.

And the atheist could turn it around and do the same. That the theist only thinks that God is the creator of objective morality because whatever natural thing might be behind it, makes it possible for people to believe that.

Again the debate is not whether God exists or not, or whether objective morality is true or not, it is about which position explains it best. So both sides have agree on this in order for the debate to take place, and it is very common in these events, to keep the focus on a specific topic. Having seen a lot of William Lane Craig debates he will almost always start his talk by clarifying what the debate is about and what it is not.

If you watch this, it should start at 13.45 and just listen for a couple of minutes you will see what I mean.