Morality? Right or wrong?

[Nimos]

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

Yes in theory, as God is the one that decide what is morally right and wrong. If God did that, you would probably think that it was good as well. That would follow from his argument.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Human well-being.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes in theory, as God is the one that decide what is morally right and wrong. If God did that, you would probably think that it was good as well. That would follow from his argument.

And, since most people reject that, the conclusion is that morality is NOT derived from the opinions of a God.

And, I would go further. Those that push off their morality to a deity are, in my mind, on the road to evil. They are guilty of a dereliction of the duty to think about morality for themselves.

 

[Brian2]

Humans are animals.

But we are different to all other animals in many ways, including what may be the most important difference, morality.

 

[viole]

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

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

Question begging, like all moral arguments for the existence of God.

With then same evidence about the existence of God, and His moral nature, I could posit that God goodness is measured by His endorsement of rape and murder, and He detests generosity, compassion etc. Therefore, rape and murder are objectively good, while generosity and compassion are objectively evil.

Does it sound strange? If yes, then it is because we already associate goodness to the latter, without needing the existence of any God in the process.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

But we are different to all other animals in many ways, including what may be the most important difference, morality.

Biologically, we are a species of great ape.

Our differences, as far as I can see, stem solely from our larger brains that give us the capability for language and generalization. Morality arises from our ability to generalize and the fact that we are a social species.

 

[Brian2]

Apples are completely different to the vehicles.

Too cryptic for me.

 

[McBell]

Don't think to much about whether or not God exists.

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

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

The only reason the word "objective" is being tossed out is because of the word "god" being used.

The onus is on the one making the claim.
That I do not have a ready answer to the question does not in any way make "god" a default any more than it would make "satan" a default.

In fact, I can make the exact same claim only replacing "god" with "{insert anything here}" and it be just as legit an "argument".

 

[Nimos]

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. I know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist.

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

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

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

I don't think that would count as an objective judgment, in regards to the meaning of objectivity:

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.

So it's not objectively true if it is decided by a majority... it need to be true regardless of any bias caused by a sentient subject.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't think that would count as an objective judgment, in regards to the meaning of objectivity:

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.

So it's not objectively true if it is decided by a majority... it need to be true regardless of any bias caused by a sentient subject.

Morality is the set of rules concerning how sentient beings interact. So it *has* to be concerned with the views of sentient beings.

Here's a question:

if there was a sentient species of cat, do you think they would have the same morality as humans?

How about a sentient species of spider?

A sentient species of octopus?

I do not. I think morality is dependent on the biology of the species involved.

 

[McBell]

Too cryptic for me.

I wanted to join in the throwing out random declarations.

 

[Brian2]

The question was about morality

And also if the existence of absolute morality is a good argument for the existence of a God. That is where the video led.
If people do see moral values as absolute then it seems to me that there must be a point of reference as the video said. I don
I know of any other point of reference than an unchanging God who is either absolutely good or bad.

 

[Nimos]

The only reason the word "objective" is being tossed out is because of the word "god" being used.

The onus is on the one making the claim.
That I do not have a ready answer to the question does not in any way make "god" a default any more than it would make "satan" a default.

In fact, I can make the exact same claim only replacing "god" with "{insert anything here}" and it be just as legit an "argument".

Forget the word God, call it the "Universal mastermind", his argument is that for something to be objectively moral, meaning that something is always considered right or wrong, there need to be someone to measure against, one that have decided which it is. He is a Christian, so he uses God, but in theory you can use anything, which is why you shouldn't be caught up in him using God.

If there is nothing to measure what is morally right or wrong against, then what decide what is objectively right or wrong?

 

[McBell]

Morality is the set of rules concerning how sentient beings interact. So it *has* to be concerned with the views of sentient beings.

Here's a question:

if there was a sentient species of cat, do you think they would have the same morality as humans?

How about a sentient species of spider?

A sentient species of octopus?

I do not. I think morality is dependent on the biology of the species involved.

cats are not able to perceive or feel things.?

 

[Polymath257]

cats are not able to perceive or feel things.?

Of course they are. But, if they were capable of moral judgement, I would not expect their morality to be the same as that for humans. Even less for a species further removed from us.

 

[Nimos]

And also if the existence of absolute morality is a good argument for the existence of a God. That is where the video led.
If people do see moral values as absolute then it seems to me that there must be a point of reference as the video said. I don
I know of any other point of reference than an unchanging God who is either absolutely good or bad.

I think people get to caught up in God here to be honest

Its about the argument he makes, that if objective morality doesn't come from some higher being, then where does it come from? You don't have to agree with him, I don't believe objective morality exists at all. But his argument, at least to me seems sound, in regards to objective morality, because what in nature should decide what is objectively right and wrong, that is the argument he makes. Does that make it more clear?

 

[McBell]

Forget the word God, call it the "Universal mastermind", his argument is that for something to be objectively moral, meaning that something is always considered right or wrong, there need to be someone to measure against, one that have decided which it is. He is a Christian, so he uses God, but in theory you can use anything, which is why you shouldn't be caught up in him using God.

If there is nothing to measure what is morally right or wrong against, then what decide what is objectively right or wrong?

The only reason the word "objective" is being tossed out is because of the term "Universal mastermind" being used.

The onus is on the one making the claim.
That I do not have a ready answer to the question does not in any way make "Universal mastermind" a default any more than it would make "satan" a default.

In fact, I can make the exact same claim only replacing "Universal mastermind" with "{insert anything here}" and it be just as legit an "argument".

 

[McBell]

Of course they are. But, if they were capable of moral judgement, I would not expect their morality to be the same as that for humans. Even less for a species further removed from us.

Now that I understand what your point is....
I agree.

 

[joe1776]

I don't think that would count as an objective judgment, in regards to the meaning of objectivity:

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.

So it's not objectively true if it is decided by a majority... it need to be true regardless of any bias caused by a sentient subject.

Polymath's response was a good one but I will also point out that the whole point of a majority vote is to rule out bias.

 

[Nimos]

And, since most people reject that, the conclusion is that morality is NOT derived from the opinions of a God.

And, I would go further. Those that push off their morality to a deity are, in my mind, on the road to evil. They are guilty of a dereliction of the duty to think about morality for themselves.

In that case, you would say that morality is subjective?