The argument that God provides a basis for objective moral values is bad

[Cephus]

Agreed, but not necessarily to the individual. The standard is enforced by society as a whole. Certain things are considered immoral by the community, and the community gives itself authority to enforce these morals through various tools.

Sure, morality is something that is adopted by societies and taught to individuals within those societies. That doesn't mean that the morals adopted by various societies are necessarily correct or factually true, and we know that they do change over time. What we believe to be moral today will invariably change in the future and they'll look back at us and think we were immoral. How anyone can make a case that this is objective is beyond me. The fact remains, nobody is making a case, they are just claiming it exists.

 

[leibowde84]

Especially in West because of how we've changed our values. Our views on personal integrity, personal rights, property rights, protection, safety, security, pursuit of happiness, all of that overrides the religious mandates and religious pursuits. The countries with the biggest problems of human rights are the countries where religious belief and pursuit of pleasing God is put first, over any personal rights. In those countries, it seems that if a woman is raped, it's because Satan tempted the man through her, so she's at fault. So they've turned the tables of who's the victim and the religious rights override any personal protection. The big question is really, what values are the ones that would benefit society and the majority of people the most? From that, we can derive the best morals.

Agreed. I've always wondered why theists feel so strongly that God needs us to "pleasure" him (no pun in tended ).

 

[leibowde84]

Sure, morality is something that is adopted by societies and taught to individuals within those societies. That doesn't mean that the morals adopted by various societies are necessarily correct or factually true, and we know that they do change over time. What we believe to be moral today will invariably change in the future and they'll look back at us and think we were immoral. How anyone can make a case that this is objective is beyond me. The fact remains, nobody is making a case, they are just claiming it exists.

I never said anything to the contrary. I do not believe that morality is objective, per se. My point, which you agree with, is that morality from generation to generation can be compared and judged against each other. In short, it can be shown that morality evolves with society.

 

[Goblin]

It seems that morality in general (globally average) has improved quite a bit since then. Wouldn't you agree?

thats my point it hasnt improved it just changed.
if someone insists that they are right about morals they have actually(at least in their minds) become the decider God by implying omniscience. a state of ego inflation.
which is why prophets who have a "close connection to God" seem like megalomaniacs. they listen to their hearts or maybe some voice they hear and consider it concrete fact.

it doesnt matter what you or i think is better or worse morality wise. because in twenty years it could be completely different, based on what the children are taught.

 

[leibowde84]

What would stop them?

I would say lack of progress in other not morally related issues. For instance, contact with other people, economical progress, technological progress, the Internet, TV, whatever.

Suppose that a nuclear war kills everybody except people in, say, Switzerland. Do you think that their current morality will improve from there?

i am not sure.

Ciao

- viole

I'm asking, why wouldn't we be able to substitute our moral structure for that of the 1500s (just an example)? If everyone suddenly changed, what outside forces would prevent this? How specifically?

 

[serp777]

I'm not concerned with what you or anyone else claims to be "the traditional concept of morality." And, I understand that morality is subjective, as absolute morality doesn't seem to exist in reality. I agree with your point that "our morals are bettter for an efficient society in terms of utilitarianism," and, I would contend, that is all that matters for this discussion.

Well i didn't claim anything to be the traditional concept of morality. That wasn't my point; people generally have a conception of what morality is. I'm not specifying what that is just for clarification, so I wouldn't expect you to be concerned with something I didn't even elaborate on.

The final footnote here is that best for society doesn't mean objectively good because society isnt good or bad.

 

[leibowde84]

thats my point it hasnt improved it just changed.
if someone insists that they are right about morals they have actually(at least in their minds) become the decider God by implying omniscience. a state of ego inflation.
which is why prophets who have a "close connection to God" seem like megalomaniacs. they listen to their hearts or maybe some voice they hear and consider it concrete fact.

it doesnt matter what you or i think is better or worse morality wise. because in twenty years it could be completely different, based on what the children are taught.

I never said that anyone in this hypothetical is considering themselves as "right." They are merely looking at the situation, pain caused, benefits to society, safet, etc. and can consider their moral approach "more right" than that of societies in the past. I do not think that anyone can reasonable know what is "absolute morality" or what is the "ultimate right."

 

[leibowde84]

Well i didn't claim anything to be the traditional concept of morality. That wasn't my point; people generally have a conception of what morality is. I'm not specifying what that is just for clarification, so I wouldn't expect you to be concerned with something I didn't even elaborate on.

The final footnote here is that best for society doesn't mean objectively good because society isnt good or bad.

I don't think there is an objective "good" or "bad." But, I do think that we have ways of telling whether actions are "good" or "bad" in regards to our well-being ... socially subjective morality I guess.

BTW, I'm sorry if I came accross as aggressive in my first sentence from my last post. I just read it and realized it came off that way. I certainly did not mean anything by it. Hope there aren't any hard feelings. Love the conversation!

 

[Goblin]

screw it..
an harm none; do as ye will

 

[leibowde84]

thats my point it hasnt improved it just changed.
if someone insists that they are right about morals they have actually(at least in their minds) become the decider God by implying omniscience. a state of ego inflation.
which is why prophets who have a "close connection to God" seem like megalomaniacs. they listen to their hearts or maybe some voice they hear and consider it concrete fact.

it doesnt matter what you or i think is better or worse morality wise. because in twenty years it could be completely different, based on what the children are taught.

That's true. All I am saying is that comparative studies between the morals of different cultures throughout time can be achieved. Obviously, the assessment by any specific society will be subjective to that society, but what else matters?

 

[Goblin]

i just mean society hasnt "improved" it just changed

 

[serp777]

I don't think there is an objective "good" or "bad." But, I do think that we have ways of telling whether actions are "good" or "bad" in regards to our well-being ... socially subjective morality I guess.

BTW, I'm sorry if I came accross as aggressive in my first sentence from my last post. I just read it and realized it came off that way. I certainly did not mean anything by it. Hope there aren't any hard feelings. Love the conversation!

GRRR. Im so mad and offended. Look how upset I am . im using an angry frowny face. I reported you like 18 times!!!

All kidding aside its not big deal. I maybe thought you were mildly annoyed at most but yes subjective social interpretations indeed. Especially through the internet.

 

[leibowde84]

GRRR. Im so mad and offended. Look how upset I am . im using an angry frowny face. I reported you like 18 times!!!

All kidding aside its not big deal. I maybe thought you were mildly annoyed at most but yes subjective social interpretations indeed. Especially through the internet.

lol. Love it.

 

[Ouroboros]

I posted definitions of objectivity and subjectivity and as soon as I did that, people stopped talking to me. Imagine that.

Hey! I haven't stopped talking to you!

 

[Kirran]

Let's use subjective language here: xlkj a0s8 dv8sldkjnaq 23#@ 2 sdlfkj ;..a.sr234
That's my newly invented language. My subjective language. It makes total sense to me, but not to anyone else. What's the use then of it if it can't make sense to everyone else? Language is built on commonality and shared ideas between people, so it's non-subjective.

Let's expand on the language analogy.

It is wrong to lie within certain moral systems, just as a tree is called a tree in a certain language.

We could have morals completely different from anybody else, or not have any at all, but it would make it pretty hard to get by in society. Similar to if you went around speaking your own personal language, or didn't speak a language.

In short, it can be shown that morality evolves with society.

I like this. As with biological evolution, changes occur, there's selection upon memes, ones with certain attributes are more likely to spread, but there's no real direction or conscious purpose.

 

[Ouroboros]

So really who is to say that today's morals are good or bad? I would agree that our morals are better for an efficient society in terms of utilitarianism, but not in the traditional concept of morality.

I'm not even sure if our morals are effective for a utilitarian society. US has the large number of people incarcerated and always been high up in number of crimes per capita. We don't take care of the poor, sick, mentally ill, and so on in any great efficiency. But, our system is extremely efficient for producing multinational corporations that buy lobbyists to create laws that benefit them more than the people.

 

[Ouroboros]

Let's expand on the language analogy.

It is wrong to lie within certain moral systems, just as a tree is called a tree in a certain language.

We could have morals completely different from anybody else, or not have any at all, but it would make it pretty hard to get by in society. Similar to if you went around speaking your own personal language, or didn't speak a language.

Exactly.

And we could have societies where lying or even stealing is not only allowed but encouraged, yet it could work as a cohesive society (I remember reading about a tribe where this was true in sociology). But the question is rather, which kind of moral code is more efficient for a larger number of people. We do know that our Western morality has been great in producing a productive working class and great inventions and science both.

I like this. As with biological evolution, changes occur, there's selection upon memes, ones with certain attributes are more likely to spread, but there's no real direction or conscious purpose.

Now we're talking! Agree.

Moral evolves. Morals is a form of unwritten meme codex. There's no perfect species. Only fit for a certain environment and condition, just like morals change to fit current culture, science, knowledge.

Also, today, I suspect most people know that lying is only wrong in general, but it's okay in some situations. There's no absolute moral code. It's only suggestive for most common situations.

 

[Ouroboros]

Agreed. I've always wondered why theists feel so strongly that God needs us to "pleasure" him (no pun in tended ).

It's an interesting question. Something we perhaps dive into in another thread at some point.

 

[jchristopher]

Because there's no such thing as an unbiased moral agent, including a deity.

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion. but certainly, if there is a God, he is absolute, and so are his laws and teachings

 

[leibowde84]

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion. but certainly, if there is a God, he is absolute, and so are his laws and teachings

The problem is, we have no way of knowing for sure what those teachings are. I think it is unreasonable for God to demand we believe things that are so easily debated. Now, the spirit of Jesus' teachings ... all good in the neighborhood.