• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Morality? Right or wrong?

Nimos

Well-Known Member
That's a false analogy. It deals with the reasoning mind which makes lots of mistakes. Conscience is intuition.
The example were given in regards to objective morality... meaning, that if 9 people believe one thing is objective moral and one doesn't, then clearly it is not objectively moral.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The example were given in regards to objective morality... meaning, that if 9 people believe one thing is objective moral and one doesn't, then clearly it is not objectively moral.

I disagree. if 9 people out of 10 think the world is flat, that doesn't make the question of the roundness of the world subjective.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
I would agree with that assessment, at least until someone can give a better explanation of where objective morality should come from, if not from some higher being.
The judgments of conscience can be shown to be aligned with the survival of our species and thus argued as a product of evolution. For example, killing someone in self-defense is approved by conscience. This would deplete the gene pool of the violent bullies in our midst.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
OK, that makes no sense to me. We test objective things all the time: that is the whole basis of science, after all. It is repeated testing that *determines* that something is objective, I think.
Yes, but we are talking about morality :)

Objective morality means that something is always either right or wrong, there is no middle ground or opinion involved. So you don't test for it, in that sense.

When we do tests in regards to everyday things or science, it's because we don't know how they work. So we have a hypothesis we test it and at some point if everything goes well we end up with a scientific theory, that is objectively true of how a given thing works, which again is not something we have opinions about. Like saying "I don't really feel like Einstein was right, I think it would be better if we remove the E from the equation." Either its true or it isn't :)
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
I disagree. if 9 people out of 10 think the world is flat, that doesn't make the question of the roundness of the world subjective.
Ok you misunderstood me.

For something to be objectively moral, it need to either be true or false... so if 9 people say that something is objectively right and one doesn't, then you can't say that it is an objectively moral. It was not clever of me, to use such example, because it causes confusion :)
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
The example were given in regards to objective morality... meaning, that if 9 people believe one thing is objective moral and one doesn't, then clearly it is not objectively moral.
So, if one person is biased and disagrees that makes the judgment subjective?

By that reasoning, objectivity doesn't exist.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
The judgments of conscience can be shown to be aligned with the survival of our species and thus a product of evolution. For example, killing someone in self-defense is approved by conscience. This would deplete the gene pool of the violent bullies in our midst.
Im not sure that this would count as a moral issue to begin with... meaning self defence. Because you are being forced into doing it, since you are being assaulted.

I do however think that the question of you deciding to try to kill or subdue the person that assault you is a moral issue, meaning is it always better to kill the person that assaults you or isn't it?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Ok you misunderstood me.

For something to be objectively moral, it need to either be true or false... so if 9 people say that something is objectively right and one doesn't, then you can't say that it is an objectively moral. It was not clever of me, to use such example, because it causes confusion :)

Why would you not be able to say that? The corresponding situation for the roundness of the Earth doesn't destroy the objectivity of the roundness of the earth, does it?

Why would 1 person disagreeing about morality make such not objective?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, but we are talking about morality :)

Objective morality means that something is always either right or wrong, there is no middle ground or opinion involved. So you don't test for it, in that sense.

When we do tests in regards to everyday things or science, it's because we don't know how they work. So we have a hypothesis we test it and at some point if everything goes well we end up with a scientific theory, that is objectively true of how a given thing works, which again is not something we have opinions about. Like saying "I don't really feel like Einstein was right, I think it would be better if we remove the E from the equation." Either its true or it isn't :)

Exactly. And *if* morality is objective, it would still be possible for people to be wrong about it, just like they are wrong about other objective things.

In fact, it is the objectivity that makes it possible to say they are wrong.
 
Personally, I take objection to the idea that god, which cannot be shown to objectively exist, is their claimed source for objective morality.

And that is just the first 45 seconds...

I also object to the bold empty claim that there even is an objective morality outside the individual

This is interesting. Do you think there is anything that will always be considered wrong?
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Apparently a lot of people believe in objective morality, don't know if you do? But if you do, where would you say that objective morality comes from?
A big part of the problem here is that the word "objective" has more than one meaning.
One is that something has existence whether anybody knows it or not. The heliocentric solar system existed, even when everyone thought differently. And the folks explaining that aspect were commonly opposed because heliocentric solar system contradicts Scripture. Nevertheless, the heliocentric solar system has objective existence.
A different meaning is unbiased. It's related to the first, but different. An unbiased moral code would apply to everyone, not one set of rules for one group and a different one for others.

So, while there can be an unbiased morality, there's no morality that would exist without people to believe in it. The one example Craig came up with is vague and very secular. Nobody needs a religion to see the value in community. Nearly every religion has some version of it. Plenty of nonreligious codes do as well.
However, sticking to Craig's religion, anybody can read how there's all kinds of opposing moral values in the Bible. So many that people can pick and choose from a smorgasbord of "commands" and justify them as The Word of God.

There is little more vague and subjective than religious morality. It's just whatever someone can justify by interpreting a Bible quote to suit their ideas.

Objective morality requires dumping Scripture as a moral guide and use a less biased standard than whatever God image a person happens to adhere to.
Tom
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
So, if one person is biased and disagrees that makes the judgment subjective?

By that reasoning, objectivity doesn't exist.
Well that is the difference between objective moral and subjective moral. If you watch the video in the first post, it is easily understood.

So in regards to the argument he makes in the video about objective morality, if one believes that it exists (Which i don't personally do), is it then sound or not? That is basically what I was asking for. Its perfectly fine, to not believe that objective morality exists, but that is irrelevant in regards to his argument, because him and many atheists do believe in objective morality. So I don't know how they would explain it.... and im an atheist as well, just don't share the view that morality is objective.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I would agree with that assessment, at least until someone can give a better explanation of where objective morality should come from, if not from some higher being.
In science we often deal with models that approximate reality but whose main value lies in explanatory power. Bohr’s model of molecular theory for example, may explain certain key observations about how atoms behave while neglecting others.

A theory that posits God being a source of objective morality levels the playing field between atheists and theists. Regardless of the source of morals, theist and atheist alike can choose to live by those morals or not. Arguably the theist has more incentive to be moral, but as humans we all have an innate need to be moral to varying degrees. In reality atheists are often just as moral as theists if not more so.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
A big part of the problem here is that the word "objective" has more than one meaning.
One is that something has existence whether anybody knows it or not. The heliocentric solar system existed, even when everyone thought differently. And the folks explaining that aspect were commonly opposed because heliocentric solar system contradicts Scripture. Nevertheless, the heliocentric solar system has objective existence.
A different meaning is unbiased. It's related to the first, but different. An unbiased moral code would apply to everyone, not one set of rules for one group and a different one for others.
I agree with that, we have to approach these things with the knowledge we have... If we have no way of, for instance testing the solar system and therefore think that we are the center, because that is what it looks like, then that is a limitation. So we are not talking absolutes here.

So, while there can be an unbiased morality, there's no morality that would exist without people to believe in it.
I think I would prefer the word "experience" it, because I don't see it as something you believe in. Either it is part of us, because those are the "rules" or it isn't and therefore it is subjective.

However, sticking to Craig's religion, anybody can read how there's all kinds of opposing moral values in the Bible. So many that people can pick and choose from a smorgasbord of "commands" and justify them as The Word of God.
Agree and he obviously doesn't address this in the video, he gives a very vague presentation, that God is good and then quickly moves on. Because its not a secret that there are some rather horrible things in the bible. Yet it doesn't prevent him from presenting God as being equal to good itself. So yeah it would cause a lot of issues for him I think.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Arguably the theist has more incentive to be moral,
If the theist is moral because they fear punishment or hope for reward, are they actually even moral?

but as humans we all have an innate need to be moral to varying degrees.
I agree with the need part.
Some right here on RF has admitted they only reason they do not rape, steal, murder, etc. is because they fear god.

In reality atheists are often just as moral as theists if not more so.
Seems to me that atheists are more likely to actually be moral than theists.
Atheists do not fear god.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
A theory that posits God being a source of objective morality levels the playing field between atheists and theists. Regardless of the source of morals, theist and atheist alike can choose to live by those morals or not. Arguably the theist has more incentive to be moral, but as humans we all have an innate need to be moral to varying degrees. In reality atheists are often just as moral as theists if not more so.
I think his idea with his argument is two folded... first of all as an argument that objective morality can only come from God.... but also that atheists just think they don't believe in God, but that this argument "proves" that in fact we do, we just deny it or are ignorant about it. Which is basically what he sneaks in at the beginning of the video, with the atheist helping the cat. And that you can be good without believing in God, but can you really be so, without God. So its a sneaky move :D
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Objective morality means that something is always either right or wrong, there is no middle ground or opinion involved.

I agree with that, we have to approach these things with the knowledge we have... If we have no way of, for instance testing the solar system and therefore think that we are the center, because that is what it looks like, then that is a limitation. So we are not talking absolutes here.
But isn't that absolute all that Craig's argument is based on?

All Craig is really doing here is making a couple of unsupported assertions, connecting them in a way that his audience won't question, and letting the wealth and fame appear like it's a blessing from God. What he's really doing is scamming some people unaccustomed to critical thinking concerning religion.
Tom
 
Top