Why Morality cannot come from God

[Curious George]

Morality has subjective and objective attributes, and is natural to the society and culture that the code of ethics and morality has. The evidence is that they evolve over time. You have to give a better argument than above that there is a distinct definable difference between 'objective and subjective' morality to be meaningful. Cultural, social, and temporal factors dominate through the history of humanity.

In scripture whether Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Baha'i or whatever there is no mention of any such thing as objective nor subjective morality. There are spiritual laws, principles, and attributes of God.

Consider slavery over the history of humanity. It is not forbidden in Jewish, Christian, nor Islamic scripture. In these scriptures it is variably regulated, allowed and tolerated. In the Baha'i spiritual laws it is forbidden in all forms. I consider it an evolved standard of spiritual base don the spiritual maturity of humanity in different ages of Revelation.

How could you describe slavery in terms of 'objective morality?'

It is well understood that there is a distinction between objective and subjective. I needn't give any argument to that effect. Placing these adjectives before the noun morality is also commonly accepted. It is you that needs to demonstrate that such a distinction is anachronistic.

While it is true that morality may rest on both subjective and objective factors, this does not mean that morality is neither objective or subjective. Either you are isolating the exact cultural, social, and temporal factors and asserting an objective morality for that instance or you are suggesting that the instance is contingent on the subjective interpretation of morality of the individual involved and has no objective truth.

But the morality of any instances cannot be both subjective and objective, they are mutually exclusive terms.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are desperately trying to figure out something that is totally beyond your reasoning! And I don't specifically mean your reasoning as in 'you', but any human mind. We don't have and cannot have the foggiest ideas of how much God is of anything. Everything exists from and starts from God. If you want to try and guess if God is moral and good you cannot fathom it. God has taken the wisest of scholars and made them ignorant to His basic knowledge. There is the truth of His words that show Him to be the starting point of knowledge, the starting point of truth, the starting point of moral values, the starting point of logic.....you could go on and on, He is the beginning of everything. He is also our sustainer for every breadth we take and every beat of our hearts. We cannot put Him in a box that fits what our mere minds think Him to be.

Santa is the starting point for truth, morals, and logic. You'd better be nice, cause Santa's making a list and checking it twice to be extra careful. We cannot put Him in a box that fits what our mere minds think Him to be. He's Santa.

Hey - if you're free to improvise, we all are.

 

[anonymous9887]

There is a serious logical problem with theistic objective morality. Suppose one states that "God is good." There are only two possibilities implied by this statement. Either the person stating that "God is good" is appealing to "good" as a characteristic outside of God, and thus, the person is effectively asserting that a higher standard of morality exists outside of God, and is judging God by that standard. Thus, God is not the arbiter of morals, rather, his actions are being evaluated as being moral based on a moral standard outside of him. If, on the other hand (and this is the only other possibility), the person stating "God is good" means that "moral goodness" is defined by God's actions, then God is an entirely amoral being. Since "Good" is defined by his actions, then by definition, everything he does must be good, and, therefore, he can do anything, and it will always be good, thus he has no choice between right and wrong, and, hence, he is amoral. In either of the two cases, we have a serious logical problem for theists who state that morality comes from God.

I would say you are right in that theist have to accept that everything god does is good. Where I draw the line is that he created us in his image to his likeness. he gave us the abilities that we now display. We have power of reason to make this determination. because something we cant deny is that if there is a god, he created us carefully.

I have seen many different religions claim to know god and try to say that god would throw people into an eternal hell to suffer for eternity. This does not make sense to me, I have also heard people say that god planned for us to come to this earth to suffer, which also does not make sense.

Argument in a nut shell, if there is a god he created us with the ability to identify what is good and bad. And because naturally we see what is evil we can see naturally that god doesnt do evil things.
I hope this makes sense

 

[shunyadragon]

It is well understood that there is a distinction between objective and subjective. I needn't give any argument to that effect. Placing these adjectives before the noun morality is also commonly accepted. It is you that needs to demonstrate that such a distinction is anachronistic.

While it is true that morality may rest on both subjective and objective factors, this does not mean that morality is neither objective or subjective. Either you are isolating the exact cultural, social, and temporal factors and asserting an objective morality for that instance or you are suggesting that the instance is contingent on the subjective interpretation of morality of the individual involved and has no objective truth.

But the morality of any instances cannot be both subjective and objective, they are mutually exclusive terms.

Talk is cheap!!!! Your failure to respond indicates you have no persuasive argument to present. No. 'it is not well understood that there is a usable distinction between objective and subjective morality.'

Some erroneously try to portray 'subjective morality' as some kind of 'personal preference morality.' but in reality 'personal preference, and or personal choices only occur with the context of a greater society, or cultural morality the individual is in.

My challenge still stands concerning slavery:

Consider slavery over the history of humanity. It is not forbidden in Jewish, Christian, nor Islamic scripture. In these scriptures it is variably regulated, allowed and tolerated. In the Baha'i spiritual laws it is forbidden in all forms. I consider it an evolved standard of spiritual base don the spiritual maturity of humanity in different ages of Revelation.

How could you describe slavery in terms of 'objective morality?'

 

[shunyadragon]

You are correct. And yet morality is important for finding God.

Which morality? Do slave owners following the Biblical teachings on slavery finding God?

 

[Curious George]

Talk is cheap!!!! Your failure to respond indicates you have no persuasive argument to present. No. 'it is not well understood that there is a usable distinction between objective and subjective morality.'

Some erroneously try to portray 'subjective morality' as some kind of 'personal preference morality.' but in reality 'personal preference, and or personal choices only occur with the context of a greater society, or cultural morality the individual is in.

My challenge still stands concerning slavery:

Talk is cheap!!!! Your failure to respond indicates you have no persuasive argument to present.


No the argument was there. Are you claiming that the terms subjective and objective are not distinct? No. Are you claiming they are inapplicable to morality? Yes. Can you show despite the vast amount of discussion on this subject why you are correct? No.

There is more than just one flavor of subjective morality. It sounds like a lot of what you are discussing is cultural relativism. You actually have to have a valid point before I can argue against it.

And while I appreciate you laying the gauntlet down with regard to slavery, you challenge is laughable.

 

[shunyadragon]

Talk is cheap!!!! Your failure to respond indicates you have no persuasive argument to present.


No the argument was there. Are you claiming that the terms subjective and objective are not distinct?

Not in terms of morality. They are distinctive in terms of defining evidence, and the difference between what is justified by human thought alone; subjective, versus the existence of objective verifiable evidence in the real world.

No. Are you claiming they are inapplicable to morality? Yes. Can you show despite the vast amount of discussion on this subject why you are correct? No.

They are not applicable to morality, because in any strict sense 'objective morality' cannot be defined clearly and specifically separate from any concept of subjective morality.

There is more than just one flavor of subjective morality. It sounds like a lot of what you are discussing is cultural relativism. You actually have to have a valid point before I can argue against it.

Your increasing the fog factor, which is a significant part of your inability to differentiate objective morality from subjective morality. If you could you would have no problem with the slavery issue where you refuse to respond.

And while I appreciate you laying the gauntlet down with regard to slavery, you challenge is laughable.

Apparently not appreciated nor responded to,

 

[Apologetics]

There is a serious logical problem with theistic objective morality. Suppose one states that "God is good." There are only two possibilities implied by this statement. Either the person stating that "God is good" is appealing to "good" as a characteristic outside of God, and thus, the person is effectively asserting that a higher standard of morality exists outside of God, and is judging God by that standard. Thus, God is not the arbiter of morals, rather, his actions are being evaluated as being moral based on a moral standard outside of him. If, on the other hand (and this is the only other possibility), the person stating "God is good" means that "moral goodness" is defined by God's actions, then God is an entirely amoral being. Since "Good" is defined by his actions, then by definition, everything he does must be good, and, therefore, he can do anything, and it will always be good, thus he has no choice between right and wrong, and, hence, he is amoral. In either of the two cases, we have a serious logical problem for theists who state that morality comes from God.

Lets put the answer to your dilemma into an earthly illustration so that you can understand and grasp the answer.

1.There are 1000s of manufactures all over the USA, making parts for machinery. Those parts have been designed with specific parameters, to hold up under performance. During production to ensure that the parts are meeting those specific qualifications, they are inspected for defects or tested for performance. If the part fails to meet those specific parameters it is rejected and recycled.

Who determines whether the part is good or bad? The Answer the designer.

Jer 18:1
The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he created a work on the wheels.
And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

 

[blü 2]

Either the person stating that "God is good" is appealing to "good" as a characteristic outside of God, and thus, the person is effectively asserting that a higher standard of morality exists outside of God, and is judging God by that standard. Thus, God is not the arbiter of morals, rather, his actions are being evaluated as being moral based on a moral standard outside of him.

If, on the other hand (and this is the only other possibility), the person stating "God is good" means that "moral goodness" is defined by God's actions, then God is an entirely amoral being. Since "Good" is defined by his actions, then by definition, everything he does must be good, and, therefore, he can do anything, and it will always be good,

Ah, we're back with the Greeks! In Plato's works, Socrates says to Euthyphro, "The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods." (Tr. Jowett)

I don't encourage invasive wars and land-grabs, massacres, mass rapes, human sacrifice, slavery, subjugation of women, homophobia, the death penalty, or any kind of theocracy. But the god of the bible is enthusiastically into all of these. I could never agree that a thing is good for the reason that X likes it and does it, and that goes double if X be the God of the bible.

But then, I don't think there's such a thing as objective morality anyway. If there is, no one knows what it is, since no one has ever given me an example of a moral rule that's objectively correct. Indeed, since such a rule is a concept, an abstraction, about proper behavior, how could a moral rule exist independently of the brain that holds the concept? (Take the number 2 as an example of a abstract concept with no real counterpart. That's the reason you don't trip over uninstantiated 2s on your morning walk. Or stub your toe on moral rules with objective existence.)

I'd be seriously delighted if someone can show I'm wrong here. I'd be fascinated to encounter a moral rule with objective existence. I could scarcely wait to get it into the workshop, strip it down, and figure out how it works. (And then see if I could put it back together.)

 

[Polymath257]

Lets put the answer to your dilemma into an earthly illustration so that you can understand and grasp the answer.

1.There are 1000s of manufactures all over the USA, making parts for machinery. Those parts have been designed with specific parameters, to hold up under performance. During production to ensure that the parts are meeting those specific qualifications, they are inspected for defects or tested for performance. If the part fails to meet those specific parameters it is rejected and recycled.

Who determines whether the part is good or bad? The Answer the designer.

Um, no. The laws of physics determine whether the design was good or bad and thereby whether a particular part is good or bad. The designer used those laws of physics in an attempt to make a good design.

Jer 18:1
The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he created a work on the wheels.
And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

And yes, a pot that is created with intelligence and moral agency *would* have the right to question the maker.

 

[Curious George]

Not in terms of morality. They are distinctive in terms of defining evidence, and the difference between what is justified by human thought alone; subjective, versus the existence of objective verifiable evidence in the real world.



They are not applicable to morality, because in any strict sense 'objective morality' cannot be defined clearly and specifically separate from any concept of subjective morality.



Your increasing the fog factor, which is a significant part of your inability to differentiate objective morality from subjective morality. If you could you would have no problem with the slavery issue where you refuse to respond.



Apparently not appreciated nor responded to,

So the problem here is that you do not understand what is meant by objective and subjective morality. Either a moral statement has truth value or it does not. This is why I dismissed your challenge regarding slavery. All I need do to make slavery objectively immoral is suggest that a god or nature deem it so.

This Objective vs. Subjective morality dichotomy continues no matter what criteria you apply. Either you are suggesting that something is true or you are suggesting that it does not hold any truth value apart from a person or a group of people believe it to be true.

You have not done away with the distinction between objective and subjective morality.

 

[blü 2]

While it is true that morality may rest on both subjective and objective factors, this does not mean that morality is neither objective or subjective.

You seem to be saying there's such a thing as objective morality. I don't think there is, but I'm here to learn.

Please give me an example of a moral rule which exists objectively, that's to say, exists whether or not any brain holds the concept of it.

Further, the objective existence of something is established by giving a satisfactory demonstration of it in reality. So please show me this rule, not just talk about it.

 

[shunyadragon]

So the problem here is that you do not understand what is meant by objective and subjective morality. Either a moral statement has truth value or it does not. This is why I dismissed your challenge regarding slavery. All I need do to make slavery objectively immoral is suggest that a god or nature deem it so.

This Objective vs. Subjective morality dichotomy continues no matter what criteria you apply. Either you are suggesting that something is true or you are suggesting that it does not hold any truth value apart from a person or a group of people believe it to be true.

You have not done away with the distinction between objective and subjective morality.

You have not defined the difference between objective morality that would distinct separate them.

God did not deem slavery as immoral any where in the Bible. There is no natural objective reason to consider slavery immoral.

 

[Curious George]

You seem to be saying there's such a thing as objective morality. I don't think there is, but I'm here to learn.

Please give me an example of a moral rule which exists objectively, that's to say, exists whether or not any brain holds the concept of it.

Further, the objective existence of something is established by giving a satisfactory demonstration of it in reality. So please show me this rule, not just talk about it.

Blü, with your philosophical readings you act like this is a foreign concept.

I am saying that objective morality is theorized. Are you really not aware of papers, books and theories regarding objective morality?

 

[Curious George]

You have not defined the difference between objective morality that would distinct separate them.

God did not deem slavery as immoral any where in the Bible. There is no natural objective reason to consider slavery immoral.

I am not referring to the God of the bible. I could invoke some other god.

These are already defined terms. Have you read nothing on the topic?

 

[shunyadragon]

Blü, with your philosophical readings you act like this is a foreign concept.

I am saying that objective morality is theorized. Are you really not aware of papers, books and theories regarding objective morality?

Something that is theorized alone is not demonstrated in reality.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not referring to the God of the bible. I could invoke some other god.

These are already defined terms. Have you read nothing on the topic?

I have read considerable over the years concerning the claims of Christians for an 'objective morality, particularly in the apologetic argument for the existence of God based on the necessity of an objective morality. ALL have failed to demonstrate an 'objective morality' in human behavior.

Christians are the only religion that argues for an 'objective morality.' I see no others than Christians on this site nor any other I debate with that argue for the existence of an objective morality. do not believe they evoke any other God. except maybe if you revert to the descriptions in the Pentateuch,

 

[Curious George]

Something that is theorized alone is not demonstrated in reality.

Lol. Is that what you have?

I am not saying an objective morality exists. I am saying it is not an anachronism. You are the ones making strange claims that have zero support. You are the one who is trying to blur the line between two concepts that have long been believed to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Curious George]

Christians are the only religion that argues for an 'objective morality.' I see no others than Christians on this site nor any other I debate with that argue for the existence of an objective morality. do not believe they evoke any other God. except maybe if you revert to the descriptions in the Pentateuch,

That does nothing to take away from my point. Morality is either objective or it is not. There is no quasi objective morality. Furthermore, no god is necessary for objective morality.

It is strange, this discussion. You are making a strange claim and then asking me to provide support for the academic understanding of ethics. It really sounds like you should brush up on the topic.

 

[ChristineM]

There is a serious logical problem with theistic objective morality. Suppose one states that "God is good." There are only two possibilities implied by this statement. Either the person stating that "God is good" is appealing to "good" as a characteristic outside of God, and thus, the person is effectively asserting that a higher standard of morality exists outside of God, and is judging God by that standard. Thus, God is not the arbiter of morals, rather, his actions are being evaluated as being moral based on a moral standard outside of him. If, on the other hand (and this is the only other possibility), the person stating "God is good" means that "moral goodness" is defined by God's actions, then God is an entirely amoral being. Since "Good" is defined by his actions, then by definition, everything he does must be good, and, therefore, he can do anything, and it will always be good, thus he has no choice between right and wrong, and, hence, he is amoral. In either of the two cases, we have a serious logical problem for theists who state that morality comes from God.

I have great difficulty with the "morals come from god" stance for several reasons.

Which god defined morals. There have been thousands worshipped throughout history (excluding the 330 million Hindu gods). Every god worshipper would claim morality as their own. (Certainly i am regularly accused of being immoral on theses pages)

So I'll go with the biggest religion. Reading the Bible as written the abrahamic god is far from moral in the commonly understood sense of the word, thus making god hypocritical.

The abrahamic god was first mentioned about 2.5/3k years ago. Morality has existed far longer than that. Without morality civilization would have floundered as a failed experiment. Civilization began to develop long before gods lived in heaven, before Valhalla, before Olympus.

Morality varies from society to society, surely had morality been the will of a god morality would be uniform across all society believing in the particular god.

For a person to need a god to dictate what is right and wrong seems to me to be very limiting.