Morality as a fluid concept for a supreme being; justification for an amoral God

[Overswarm]

Baggage? Analysing an argument and seeing the bigger picture isn't baggage.

FYI, I used to be a devout Christian, and have a decent understanding of Christian philosophy and theology. I frequently defend religion, to the point that many people think I'm religious. Plus I go to a Catholic uni. So it's not as if there's any bias on my behalf.

For someone who is attempting to come across as unbiased and logical, this reply makes me cringe.

If you can shrug off your biases sometime in the future I'd be fine with continuing the conversation down the road, but this is a lot like arguing with a 16 year old. If you can't remove yourself personally from an argument you have no place in it.

 

[Theftz22]

...but this is a lot like arguing with a 16 year old.

I resent that.

 

[Dre89]

For someone who is attempting to come across as unbiased and logical, this reply makes me cringe.

If you can shrug off your biases sometime in the future I'd be fine with continuing the conversation down the road, but this is a lot like arguing with a 16 year old. If you can't remove yourself personally from an argument you have no place in it.

How have I been bias? I believe in God. The way I've conducted myself is no different to the academics who dispute these issues, and I'm pretty sure they don't get called bias.

Is that what you say to everyone who disagrees with you? Accuse them of being bias?

And the lm is one of the most bias arguments out there. It sets out to defend a god whose existence it has to assume for the argument to have any validity.

Instead of saying I'm biased or wrong, show it.

I'd love to see how you can show how someone like me, who believes in a personal god, is bias against arguments for a personal god.

 

[Orboknown]

Not sure how you got that.

Plus, I don't think he actually meant God died, and that's prettuy stupid if he did.

God is dead: but considering the state of the species Man is in, there will perhaps be caves, for ages yet, in which his shadow will be shown.

basically,god is no longer living except in our memory of him.

 

[Dre89]

I'm still pretty sure he just meant the idea of God. I don't think he actually believed God existed temporally, and that's pretty stupid if he did.

But anyway it's not important.

I'll wait for Overswarm to attempt to show how I'm bias before I say anything else.

 

[Orboknown]

I'm still pretty sure he just meant the idea of God. I don't think he actually believed God existed temporally, and that's pretty stupid if he did.

But anyway it's not important.

I'll wait for Overswarm to attempt to show how I'm bias before I say anything else.

right.my mistake.continue your showdown with overswarm unimpeded by my distraction.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not sure if that was sarcastic or not.

I could be wrong about Neitzche, but believing that God actually existed at some point and then died doesn't really sound like him. And to be honest that's an argument that's beneath philosophy and belongs in sprituality or mythology.

 

[Orboknown]

not sarcastic.
I just started reading Nietzsche,so it is quite possible i could have misinterpreted him. Also,the message was from "Beyond good and evil" so it may not be directly about god, but merely using that as an example for something.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Um people doing different things doesn't mean morality is subjective, that just means people have done immoral things or have had different things about morality. That does nothing to show morality is subjective.

That's the whole point behind the concept of morality, being able to do the wrong thing. That's why most moral objectivists believe animals don't have morality, because they can't do the wrong thing.

That's like saying people don't have free will because different people make different choice all the time.

Personally, I find that most moral relativists are people who don't have any understanding or notion of meta-ethics.

The difference is, these people didn't believe what they were doing was immoral. To them, their actions were moral. Extremists believe stoning adulterers to death is moral. We don't.

Elaborate on the free will point...

 

[Dre89]

What does people believing they were doing the right thing have to do with anthing?

Apart from the fact that many people know that they do the wrong thing, how does the fact that people believe they're doing the right thing make morality relative?

The only people who think that are the ones who only hold moral positions based on their intuitions/emotional disposition or their upbringing. Because the reasons for their morality are subjective, they think morality in general is subjective.

This is like a theist saying atheists are only atheists because they're scared to believe in something. The type of theists who says is is the type of theist who has no rational reasons for their faith, but just believes it because they were brought up with it and weren't afraid to believe in something.

 

[Orboknown]

Morality is relative among humans because different groups have different moral standards.
God;' moralit can be considered the ultimate expression of morality because his definition would constitute the definition.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

...this is a lot like arguing with a 16 year old. If you can't remove yourself personally from an argument you have no place in it.

Implying that all 16 year olds are *******.

 

[Dre89]

Morality is relative among humans because different groups have different moral standards.
God;' moralit can be considered the ultimate expression of morality because his definition would constitute the definition.

Having different standards doesn't mean morality is not objective. You seem to think what different people think determines what morality is, but most of these societies think morality is objective.

There are also common goods in these moral systems, such as care for the young etc.

Whilst what you say about God's morality can be true, the op says he can change his morality whenever he feels like it, which contradicts Christian theology.

 

[GofG]

Dre, I find your perspectives interesting and would ask where you fall on this chart:

 

[Dre89]

My computer is capped at the moment, so it's taking too long to load the chart. I'll be able to see it in a few days, or you can just tell me what it's about and I'll tie you where I am in it.

 

[Orboknown]

Having different standards doesn't mean morality is not objective. You seem to think what different people think determines what morality is, but most of these societies think morality is objective.

There are also common goods in these moral systems, such as care for the young etc.

Whilst what you say about God's morality can be true, the op says he can change his morality whenever he feels like it, which contradicts Christian theology.

I dont think different people have different moralities;im saying what they consider moral might be different form what you or i consider moral.
Like the aztecs offering human sacrifices to their gods-they considered it part of the religious duty,making it morally acceptable by their religion(idk if i worded that right.sorry in advance).However, you and i do not morally condone this.
Also, I was going by christian theology(im roman catholic soo yea.) assuming gods morality is static and unchanging.

 

[GofG]

It is a flowchart with a couple different trees, and therefore is best expressed in picture form specifically of exponentiation.

Do moral judgements express beliefs?
Yes - Cognitivism
No - Emotivism, Prescriptivism, Quasi-Realism, Norm-Expressivism

If Yes - Are those beliefs sometimes true?
Yes -
No - Error Theory

If Yes - Are those beliefs about facts constituted by something other than human opinion?
Yes -
No - Judgement Dependent Theories (Wright)

If Yes - Are these facts natural facts?
Yes -
No - Moral Non-Naturalism (Moore, McDowell)

If Yes - Are moral facts reducible to other natural facts?
Yes -
No - Cornell Realism

If Yes - Are there surface level analytical connections between moral predicates and naturalistic predicates?
Yes - Analytical Moral Functionism
No - Standard Moral Reductionism

 

[Dre89]

I might not be understanding the the chart perfectly (my computer is good now so I looked at the actual chart, but thanks for retyping it), but I think I'm an analytic moral functionalist.

My notion of morality is derived from biology/nature, and has nothing to do with God existing or not. I personally think it's more moral to uphold morality for its own sake than to uphold it simply for the reward of eternal happiness or aversion of eternal suffering. It's rather ironic, because only practicing morality for an end of utility is actually itself immoral.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

It's rather ironic, because only practicing morality for an end of utility is actually itself immoral.

I agree with this, biological morals or morals "ad natura", if you will, is the most pure form I can think of, doing it for its own sake rather than any ulterior motive. Morality doesn't need to transcend this to be legitimate. It is also something that doesn't allow for that "Ethical philosophy is based on things like, "Boo to murder" like the old analytic philosophers said, and is grounded in logic and truth. Anything deceptive or unnatural by default becomes immoral and attains a legitimate reason because of it instead of personal values attained by traditions, surroundings, anything subjective and relative, and immediately becomes objective.

 

[Cassio]

Dre, I find your perspectives interesting and would ask where you fall on this chart:

Wow, what an amazing chart. Especially helpful with the authors.

 

[GofG]

Yes, it's definitely a 10/10 chart. I have other charts like it. We should have a chart thread.

 

[Cassio]

Id appreciate any charts you have. I tried charting that it in my head once but apparently missed a lot from what I hadnt covered, plus that looks much cleaner