Morality? Right or wrong?

[Onoma]

Not that many people agree on Bible verse meanings, but in Acts, Peter says " Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons "

This leads me to 3 different things - moral, immoral, and amoral

Peter would seem to imply that God is amoral, rejecting that which humans choose as good / bad

 

[columbus]

Another aspect of this.

Even *if* there is an objective morality, how would we go about determining it?

Even *if* said morality were dictated by a deity, how would we determine which of the many religious texts (if any) are valid?

Take a look a Christian culture. Craig's source of objective morality. Centuries of war and genocide and slavery, that's the results of basing your moral code on God's Holy Word.

Let me ask about little more contemporary moral issue. American Christians commonly support Trump and his Wall. How does that square with Jesus's commandment "Love Your Neighbors"?

It doesn't. It cannot be force fit into Christian values. There is no way that Wall can be justified rationally, based on the NT.

So, given that Christian morality is demonstrated, unequivocally, to be the vague subjective preferences of Christians we can prove that Craig's God is a fictional character that has no objective existence.
Tom

 

[PureX]

I suppose it could be, but likely unsuccessfully, since humans are the only species that can relay a sense of what is 'existential good.'

Well, first, we don't know that to be so. And second, you're trying to define "good" as a completely subjective concept, which pretty much kills any discussion before it starts. To that, all I can say is that "objectivity" is itself a subjectively derived concept. So if that is a disqualification, then nothing will qualify as anything.

Regardless of what we think, all that exists, exists because it SEEKS TO CONTINUE EXISTING. This is true regardless of our subjective awareness of it. Which would certainly imply that to exist is better than not to exist. Not just philosophically, but OBJECTIVELY.

 

[PureX]

But doesn't that depends on how you exists, let's say you exists with terrible pain and suffering everyday of your life due to some disease or whatever? Would it be better to exist than to not do?

I was not anthropomorphizing it in that way. Even a molecule has to 'work' to maintain it's cohesion, or it will cease to exist. Implying, objectively, that it's better to exist than not to exist.

If there is an objective 'good' of any kind, to be derived from any source, non-existence can neither embody nor express it. Existence can.

 

[Nimos]

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.

Obviously this argument is more interesting, if one agree that objective morality exists. For those of us that do not believe that, it's would be more interesting with an argument for or against why this is the case or not.

With that said, I do think he jumps to some conclusions that is not really supported, like these morals "must" come from God, and not just any God obviously... but the Christian one. Which is not really explained why it must the case, except that this is the God he believes in. One could just as well argue, that it was the mastermind in the simulation theory that have just encoded their morals to us or it could be any form of higher being. And as mentioned earlier, he skips over the "God = good" part really fast, when the fact is, that most people living today, at least, does not really seem to agree with the objective moral that God seem to advocate for. You have to look rather far to find people that think slavery is morally right etc. So it gives him some issues, when he assign God as being the one deciding these objective morals, I think.

But looking passed that, I think his argument in regards to objective morals is sound, if one have to discuss where such would come from, if not from a moral superior being. And honestly, I don't actually know what the atheist's response is to that... it might very well be "I don't know". But haven't really looked into it.

Surely, some people will just buy into the argument, but I also think that a lot can see the same issues as I have pointed out here. He need to be sure that his own "backyard" is clean and explainable, before he can really convince people of this. Again, people not sharing the Christian believe, might wonder why this point to the Christian God, even if they agree with what he is saying in general.

 

[columbus]

Regardless of what we think, all that exists, exists because it SEEKS TO CONTINUE EXISTING.

What?

Living things consistently seek to continue living, but that's such a tiny part of "all that exists" it's barely worth mentioning.
Tom

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Craig makes me crazy sometimes.

He loves to say things that seem axiomatic to him, and treat them as if they were already objectively true. In this video, that something is what he refers to as "God's Nature." And yet, all that Craig can actually know about "God's Nature" is what he has been told by those who taught him his Christian faith, and those who wrote the texts from which that faith derives.

And for the record, reading those texts fully and completely -- every part of them without glossing over any -- will leave even the brightest of us totally confused. The Bible does, for example, make it okay for the Israelites to slaughter male children, but keep female ones (provided they're virgins) alive for their own "use." How, then, can one claim an objective moral evil, coming from God, having to do with taking a female for sexual purposes against her will? Or the murder of children?

But for the record, there is no "objective morality" in the sense that Craig means it. We are, in fact, animals. And yet, all animals have their own nature, and there is such a thing as human nature -- a basic template that describes what it is to be human. Part of that template is that we evolved to be social animals -- dependent for our well-being on others of our kind.

In my view, it is just as easy to construct a morality -- a sense of what is good and evil -- based on the reality of human nature, which is, at its most fundamental, and objective fact. (Exceptions due to errors in gene expression do not count.)

 

[PureX]

What?

Living things consistently seek to continue living, but that's such a tiny part of "all that exists" it's barely worth mentioning.
Tom

Every individual form of existence acts to continue existing or it soon ceases to exist. Not just life forms.

 

[Nimos]

I was not anthropomorphizing it in that way. Even a molecule has to 'work' to maintain it's cohesion, or it will cease to exist. Implying, objectively, that it's better to exist than not to exist.

If there is an objective 'good' of any kind, to be derived from any source, non-existence can neither embody nor express it. Existence can.

Im not really sure I agree with that, or at least it is a lot more complicated.

I actually think you have to split it up depending on what people believe.

For me as an atheist, not believing that there is an afterlife, existing is not better than not to exists. Because if I didn't exist, then why would I care? Its not even in the realm of something I could call good or bad. That I do exists, is just a fact with no real alternative, unless I don't want to exist anymore and kill myself. But since im alive, the choice is not really unbiased. So for me to be able to make that judgement, it would need to be before I was born and was presented with for and against arguments for why existence is better than to not exists, but that would ruin the idea of not existing, which obviously ruins the whole setup. So at least for me, existing is not better than to not exists.

If you take a Christian or anyone that believe in a wonderful afterlife, is that considered to be part of the physical reality in which we are now or is it an alternative? Meaning if you died and stop existing here, you would start to exist in this new perfect place? Which obviously mean that existing there is better than here, right?

I think you are jumping one step ahead, because if you already exists here in our Universe, you are forced to follow certain rules, because that is how life works. It's not really an argument for it being better to exist than to not exist. Don't know if that makes sense?

Let me try with an example of what I mean...

Imagine you have set your house on fire and then you ask yourself if it's better to run out the door or to try to put it out? When you ought to ask yourself whether or not you should have set your house on fire in the first place. But now that we have jumped that question, we are faced with the reality that the house is on fire and therefore we have to behave according to that. Don't know if that make sense, in regards what I mean?

 

[Quintessence]

I watched most of the first video, and the main problem I have with it is their argument is too dependent on the concept of "objective morality." That concept isn't necessary to explain human behavior, as others have already touched upon by others in this conversation so far. There doesn't need to be any "objective standard" for morality in order for humans to develop social order. Other animals do it too, contrary to the claim of the video.

 

[columbus]

Every individual form of existence acts to continue existing or it soon ceases to exist. Not just life forms.

In what way does a hydrogen atom act to continue its own existence?

This is a ridiculous argument, IMNSHO.
Tom

 

[Nimos]

I watched most of the first video, and the main problem I have with it is their argument is too dependent on the concept of "objective morality." That concept isn't necessary to explain human behavior, as others have already touched upon by others in this conversation so far. There doesn't need to be any "objective standard" for morality in order for humans to develop social order. Other animals do it too, contrary to the claim of the video.

Clearly objective morality is what the video is ultimately about and an argumentation against atheists that say that it can exists without God. So clearly if you disagree with objective morality it self, it will be less relevant

 

[PureX]

Im not really sure I agree with that, or at least it is a lot more complicated.

I actually think you have to split it up depending on what people believe.

For me as an atheists, not believing that there is an afterlife, existing is not better than not to exists. Because if I didn't exist, then why would I care? Its no even in the realm of something I could call good or bad. That I do exists, is just a fact with no real alternative, unless I don't want to exist anymore and kill myself. But since im alive, the choice is not really unbiased. So for me to be able to make that judgement, it would be before I was born and was presented with for an against arguments for why existence is better than to not exists, but that would ruin the idea of not existing, which obviously ruins the whole setup. So at least for me, existing is not better than to not exists.

Didn't you just prove, here, that it is 'objectively' better to exist, than not to exist, BECAUSE not existing cannot embody any form of goodness, or badness, while existing can? And even if you were unfortunately rendered brain dead, your body would still try to continue living, without you. Even it, on it's own, will embody the ideal that to exist is better than not to exist. It doesn't get more "objective" then that!

I think you are jumping one step ahead, because if you already exists here in our Universe, you are forced to follow certain rules, because that is how life works. It's not really an argument that it is better to exist that to not exists. Don't know if that makes sense?

Well ... As a human, we have the ability to defy this natural "law" if we want. And yet we rarely do. And when we do it's under extreme duress.

But again, can't you see that this natural "law" is, itself, objective proof that it is better to exist than not to exist? Pretty much everything that exists, concedes to it.

Let me try with an example of what I mean...

Imagine you have set your house on fire and then you ask yourself if it's better to run out the door or to try to put it out? When you ought to ask yourself whether or not you should have set your house on fire in the first place. But now that we have jumped that question, we are faced with the reality that the house is on fire and therefore we have to behave according to that. Don't know if that make sense, in regards what I mean?

But as a human, we do NOT HAVE TO behave according that law. And yet we nearly always do because 'that law' is built into us, objectively. So much so that we very rarely override it subjectively.

 

[PureX]

In what way does a hydrogen atom act to continue its own existence?

This is a ridiculous argument, IMNSHO.
Tom

In every way that holds it together. The natural laws of the universe express themselves as the desire to hold that molecule, and all other such complex expressions of existence, together, and extant. If they did not, nothing could or would exist. Such that to exist, is the goal.

 

[Quintessence]

Clearly objective morality is what the video is ultimately about and an argumentation against atheists that say that it can exists without God. So clearly if you disagree with objective morality it self, it will be less relevant

Perhaps the problem here is that most who believe it is possible to be "good" without the one-god - whether theist or atheist - don't accept the notion of some objective standard of morality to begin with. So if their intent is to foil rejection of their one-god based on objective morality, that doesn't really work well as an argument. If you want to make a good argument for the one-god from the perspective of those who reject that god, you've got to start with premises that your detractors actually believe in.

Put another way, granting that morality is subjective, what would the argument for being good with or without the one-god look like?

 

[columbus]

Craig makes me crazy sometimes.

Because he doesn't believe in "Love Your Neighbor".

He believes in scamming people who aren't all that sharp and ignoring the effects he has on people like us. He is a true Christian!

Everyone says so.<said in my best Trump impersonator voice>

But, the objective truth is that I do think he's a solid Christian. He's exactly what I expect from Christian leadership. And he's got centuries of history to back him up.
Tom

 

[columbus]

In every way that holds it together. The natural laws of the universe express themselves as the desire to hold that molecule, and all other such complex expressions of existence, together, and extant. If they did not, nothing could or would exist. Such that to exist, is the goal.

"Desires"? "Goals"?

What could possibly make you believe that hydrogen atoms have desires or goals? I think you're anthropomorphizing again.
Tom

 

[sun rise]

Good and evil are human concepts that are societal axioms. They simply don't exist outside humanity.

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.

I accept that objective morality depends on an object and without God the universe is random and without ultimate meaning.

But his claim that morality is invariant and as we understand it today fails from a historical perspective. Slavery was considered moral because the Bible endorsed it (in the view of slave owners).

As far as, for example, sacrificing children, as was done, I refer to the ultimate justification that a child is sacrificed for the good of the community (as the people thought of it then) based on the axiom:

Amanda: "Spock, does the good of the many outweigh the good of the one?"
Spock: "I would accept that as an axiom."

 

[Nimos]

Didn't you just prove, here, that it is 'objectively' better to exist, than not to exist, BECAUSE not existing cannot embody any form of goodness, or badness, while existing can? And even if you were unfortunately rendered brain dead, your body would still try to continue living, without you. Even it, on it's own, will embody the ideal that to exist is better than not to exist. It doesn't get more "objective" then that!

Im not arguing against there being objective truths.. So from a living organisms point of view, it is considered better to exists than not to, in most cases. I mean it's also better to not be on fire than it is to be But we are talking morality here.

But again, can't you see that this natural "law" is, itself, objective proof that it is better to exist than not to exist? Pretty much everything that exists, concedes to it.

From the perspective of already existing, I have no real issue with what you are saying. But we don't have any choice in whether or not we come into existence or not. Therefore saying that existing is objectively better than to not exists, is only, and can only be true from an unbiased position of being alive. Because as you say, if you don't exists this is irrelevant. So as I see it, we have two options, we can either ask the question, assuming that we have the choice to begin with as a thought experiment or we have to simply say that it is irrelevant given the fact that we have no choice.

But as a human, we do NOT HAVE TO behave according that law. And yet we nearly always do because 'that law' is built into us, objectively. So much so that we very rarely override it subjectively.

Are you still talking morality here?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I find it rather amusing that some believe in objective morality yet such hardly exists universally amongst all the religious beliefs (no surprise there), and I would really like to know when our ancestors recognised such rather than the very subjective morality that no doubt existed for much longer than this notion of objective morality. No reason why we cannot come to a consensus regarding moral values, even if it might take a bit longer than we think - after all, it is a worthwhile objective.