The Moral Argument and Secular Morality

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So @Maven89 went into this subject in the "what counts for evidence as god" thread, and I figure it deserves its own thread. Specifically, morality in theistic and secular moral systems, along with the moral argument for the existence of god.

I figure we can start with morality in the respective systems, because once you get past the idea that morality cannot exist without god, the moral argument for the existence of god falls to pieces.

--

First of all, morality in theistic moral systems is fairly simple. Morality is typically (I'm just gonna say by my definition of "theistic moral system") derived from the will of a god, a "higher power", and is typically defined in such systems as "that which conforms to the will of god". By this definition, it is trivial to show that without god there can be no morality - after all, if there is no god, there is nothing to conform to and morality becomes meaningless.

Now, I have some serious issues with this definition of morality. For starters, it's entirely independent of any sort of human interest. If god declared it morally right to slowly skin and torture each other to death, then that would be "moral". Every single one of you can say right now that that would be a problem - those who say they would consider that moral simply because god said so are lying. We all instinctively know that there's something wrong with that.

What's more, at that point, I fail to see why I should care about what is or is not moral. If morality has nothing to do with us, and something is moral based simply on the pronouncements of a supernatural being, then equating that definition with the typical dictionary definition for "moral" of "that which is virtuous or good" is a complete equivocation fallacy, akin to someone up on a ladder fixing your roof asking you to pass him more nails, and you giving him a jar of toenail clippings. If god tells you to murder your child, is it virtuous to do it?

The fact is that theistic moral systems offer us no morality to speak of. There is no way to determine what is or is not righteous, because for any command we get from on high, we still have to make a moral judgment - we need to either judge that the commandment is virtuous, or we have to judge that the command-giver is virtuous - otherwise, we cannot be sure that the command is moral. And if we judge the command-giver as moral because he gives the command that he is moral, then we're stuck in a circle.

--

So how do we go about determining what is and is not moral?

Secular moral systems vary greatly, but the one I'm going to present to you is based largely on two things: firstly, our definition of "moral" as "that which furthers the rights, freedoms, and happiness of individual humans and of society", and secondly, the recognition that humans are, by and large, similar. Not all the same, but for any given human, you can make a few statements - life is generally preferable to death; pleasure is generally preferable to pain; et cetera.

From this, you can derive a fairly large number of moral pronouncements just on the basis of empathy - murder is wrong, because I would not like to be murdered (and egocentric morality* is self-refuting). For those who would like to be murdered, murder is wrong because I know it would be something others would not like, and I would not like to have things happen to me which I do not like.

Now, could this be morally wrong? Could there be some absolute moral pronouncements somewhere that offer a completely different morality? Sure! But in this case, we're actually left with a result that makes sense. It's good for humanity and good for us.

*Egocentric morality is basically "it's wrong for you to do X to me, but fine for me to do X to you" - this just doesn't work, because if that's how morals were set up, and two people did X to each other, both would expect the other to be, morally, in the wrong, while expecting themselves to be morally in the right. It's self-refuting, and thus as a result moral maxims cannot be egocentric. This is not to ignore significant differences - if I feed you chocolate and you feed me chocolate, and you're deathly allergic to chocolate, it's not egocentric morality to claim that different rules apply.

--

So finally, The Moral Argument. This argument, in its quintessential form, states:

1. If God does not exist, morality does not exist.
2. Morality exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The first premise is simply wrong on a number of levels. Unless you want to shoehorn in a very specific definition, morality can exist without god. If we want to define morality as I did above when talking about theistic morality, then premise two falls flat, because divine fiat is something that must be demonstrated. It's that equivocation fallacy from before again. Simply because Humans do not go around killing each other does not mean that morality exists when your definition of morality is "that which conforms to the will of god" - you'd need to prove that said will of god exists and that you can interpret it accurately, which, unless you missed it, was the entire purpose of this argument in the first place.

--

So morals are not a good argument for the existence of god. In fact, if you examine the bible and its morality, it's entirely fair to say that we do not derive our morals from the Christian God - a God who sanctions slavery, genocide, mass ****, infinite punishment for finite rewards (the single most unjust thing I can imagine), execution for actions that cause no harm, human sacrifice (and no, I don't mean Isaac, I mean Jephthah and his daughter), and the like. Rather, we get them from the world around us, from our evolved empathy.



Thoughts? Discussion?

 

[Sehnsucht]

First of all, morality in theistic moral systems is fairly simple. Morality is typically (I'm just gonna say by my definition of "theistic moral system") derived from the will of a god, a "higher power", and is typically defined in such systems as "that which conforms to the will of god". By this definition, it is trivial to show that without god there can be no morality - after all, if there is no god, there is nothing to conform to and morality becomes meaningless.

Now, I have some serious issues with this definition of morality. For starters, it's entirely independent of any sort of human interest. If god declared it morally right to slowly skin and torture each other to death, then that would be "moral". Every single one of you can say right now that that would be a problem - those who say they would consider that moral simply because god said so are lying.

What's more, at that point, I fail to see why I should care about what is or is not moral. If morality has nothing to do with us, and something is moral based simply on the pronouncements of a supernatural being, then equating that definition with the typical dictionary definition for "moral" of "that which is virtuous or good" is a complete equivocation fallacy, akin to someone up on a ladder fixing your roof asking you to pass him more nails, and you giving him a jar of toenail clippings. If god tells you to murder your child, is it virtuous to do it?

The fact is that theistic moral systems offer us no morality to speak of. There is no way to determine what is or is not righteous, because for any command we get from on high, we still have to make a moral judgment - we need to either judge that the commandment is virtuous, or we have to judge that the command-giver is virtuous - otherwise, we cannot be sure that the command is moral. And if we judge the command-giver as moral because he gives the command that he is moral, then we're stuck in a circle.

To expand, in Christian Apologetics, this is called the Euthyphro Dilemma. Is a thing good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?

If the former, then the substance of "good" and "bad" is entirely up to God's whims. These terms are thus arbitrary, since whatever God says is "good" is good. As you note, this is problematic, since if God says skinning folks alive is good (as in your example), then it would be good by definition (or by divine fiat, in this case).

If the latter, then God is appealing a standard of morality beyond itself, independent of God. When considering a divine proclamation, God must first reference the Metaphysical Handbook On Morality before an act can be deemed righteous or not. This poses problems for the usual formulations and conceptions of God's nature, who is meant to be omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. God is supposed to be the greatest being, yet God has to appeal to this standard that apparently supersedes whatever opinions God might have on the subject of morality.

The Dilemma sometimes comes in the form of a Trilemma, since apologists might invoke a third formulation of divine command to circumvent the above issues. They might say that the "good" is synonymous with God's very nature, and the "bad" to be the opposite of God's nature. The standard of morality emanates from God itself, for God is The Good. To do good is to be in concordance with God, and thus with all things -- the universe, your fellow humans, nature, etc.

So God doesn't appeal to some external standard, nor does God simply issue otherwise arbitrary commands as per their whims. God is The Good, and so the shape of morality is the by-product of what God is. This is concordant with other proposed qualities of God, namely that God is omnibenevolent (and of course God is all-good if God is The Good).

Yet this is still not the best solution. Because then the question becomes how much control God has over its nature. If God has no control over their nature, then what determines this nature? The Good and The Bad become contingent on whatever God happens to be, and so it's otherwise arbitrary (and also poses problems for omnipotence). If God can control or change their nature, then God could choose to modify themselves such that The Good becomes whatever they wish (which brings back divine fiat).

Though whether one is dealing with Dilemmas or Trilemmas, you also note a key problem in how one goes about interpreting these divine commands. But in mentioning that we must still make the judgement on whether these commands are of any worth, I think you're touching on something even more fundamental -- that none of this matters if I, Sehnsucht, don't care about it. You can tell me that sharing my Oreo cookies with you is The Good all day long, but if I don't want to do it, then no amount of appeals to God's will/judgement/nature/etc. can persuade me to share my cookies.

Theistic morality is divorced from human experience, since it is imposed upon it, and not emergent from it. Which is why I too don't find such moral frameworks sufficient. In the paragraph above, we see hints that morality is instead contingent upon the agent and their desires. Because if, in the end, I don't want to do something, I won't do it (and if I do, I will).

So how do we go about determining what is and is not moral?

Secular moral systems vary greatly, but the one I'm going to present to you is based largely on two things: firstly, our definition of "moral" as "that which furthers the rights, freedoms, and happiness of individual humans and of society", and secondly, the recognition that humans are, by and large, similar. Not all the same, but for any given human, you can make a few statements - life is generally preferable to death; pleasure is generally preferable to pain; et cetera.

From this, you can derive a fairly large number of moral pronouncements just on the basis of empathy - murder is wrong, because I would not like to be murdered (and egocentric morality* is self-refuting). For those who would like to be murdered, murder is wrong because I know it would be something others would not like, and I would not like to have things happen to me which I do not like.

Now, could this be morally wrong? Could there be some absolute moral pronouncements somewhere that offer a completely different morality? Sure! But in this case, we're actually left with a result that makes sense. It's good for humanity and good for us.

*Egocentric morality is basically "it's wrong for you to do X to me, but fine for me to do X to you" - this just doesn't work, because if that's how morals were set up, and two people did X to each other, both would expect the other to be, morally, in the wrong, while expecting themselves to be morally in the right. It's self-refuting, and thus as a result moral maxims cannot be egocentric. This is not to ignore significant differences - if I feed you chocolate and you feed me chocolate, and you're deathly allergic to chocolate, it's not egocentric morality to claim that different rules apply.

My formulation of secular ethics doesn't hinge on empathy; rather, it hinges on desire, which is (or can be) informed by empathy.

Consider the following formulation:

-Morality is that which concerns what we should or should not do for a given situation;
-Only those that can reflect on their actions and compute their potential consequences can determine what they should or should not do for a given situation;
-Only those capable of self-awareness possess faculties of reflection and consequence-computation;
-Therefore, morality can only concern agents (self-aware persons);
-Only actions and their consequences possess moral substance, for deeds and thoughts and impulses which are not acted upon never manifest in the actual world, and so for all intents and purpose exist in a vacuum;
-In human agents, all actions are ultimately driven by desires (what we want or don't want) and values (what we care about as a function of what we desire);
-If desires are at the root of all action, then desires form the foundation of secular morality.

So we have a conditional, contingent framework. IF X, THEN Y. If you desire X, then you should proceed with Y.

You may note that the above formulation makes no distinction between what is "right" and what is "wrong". This is because the formulation only shows the proverbial math behind morality. Because there are no external standards to reference, then any standards we do form will invariably be arbitrary, in that it could be any (other) way. But that's irrelevant; to proclaim X as righteous may be arbitrary, but if we all agree that X is righteous, what difference does it make?

To formulate a standard, we have to examine our desires, which is where empathy and other innate faculties come in. It is objectively the case that if you and I help each other fulfill our desires, then we'll have a greater chance of fulfilling them than if we each work on our own (because then, there is a greater chance that my desires may conflict with your desires). And this strategy can be seen in our pro-social heritage; pro-sociality, in which every member helps every other, increases the chances of the group's long-term survival. This is where empathy and conscience are rooted; we are wired to experience that which contributes to the group's survival as "good", and that which inhibits it as "bad".

So, if we look at the whole of humanity, we see that most people want to live as long as they can. If everyone tried to fulfill this desire on their own, they could survive, but conflicts would be more prevalent, and so you have less optimal state of affairs. But if I help you to survive, and you help me, we'll be likelier to survive longer. And an extension of this desire is that we don't generally want to die, so we're averse to pain and injury.

On the whole, we generally want to survive. We don't want to be hungry or thirsty or cold. We want to be happy. We don't like it when others transgress upon our autonomy. We don't like getting hurt, or getting assaulted or murdered. We don't like it when people steal our possessions. We enjoy receiving things from others. And so on.

A standard for us to work with thus emerges. Sharing, helping, respecting autonomy; these are righteous actions, since they contribute to the long-term fulfillment of our desires. Violations of autonomy (murder, assault, harassment), transgression of property (theft, vandalism), selfishness (fulfilling one's desire at the expense of another's); these are non-righteous actions, since they are a detriment to long-term desire-fulfillment for the group.

A desire-driven, pro-social ethical model thus seems to be the most optimal secular framework. It emerges utterly and wholly from human experience, and takes into account our innate faculties to inform its standards. And you end up with what most people already tend to consider as "good" and "bad" -- and this is because, as this model suggests, these sense of empathy and conscience and the like are emergent from our very natures.

This model is utterly arbitrary, in that it could be any other way. There is no obligation to follow these norms. Nothing is stopping you from fulfilling your desires at the expense of others. But then again, nothing does under any moral system. Yet even if this pro-social model is arbitrary, we can still adopt it. It is useful, has real-world applications, and goes with the grain of the human being (i.e. emergence), and not against it (i.e. standards imposed from on high to which we must conform). So why not adopt it, if most people would naturally align with it (and to various extents, already do)?

Just an expansion on your empathy-based formulation. Empathy only informs things; it is action that has moral substance (and it is desire that drives action). And I agree that ego-centric ethics (i.e. the Golden Rule) is not the most optimal way to go about things. The Platinum Rule -- to do unto others as they would want to be done unto them -- is much better, since you must now respect the desires of others (whereas in the Golden Rule, it is your desires that form the basis of moral action, with no consideration to others).

So finally, The Moral Argument. This argument, in its quintessential form, states:

1. If God does not exist, morality does not exist.
2. Morality exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The first premise is simply wrong on a number of levels. Unless you want to shoehorn in a very specific definition, morality can exist without god. If we want to define morality as I did above when talking about theistic morality, then premise two falls flat, because divine fiat is something that must be demonstrated. It's that equivocation fallacy from before again. Simply because Humans do not go around killing each other does not mean that morality exists when your definition of morality is "that which conforms to the will of god" - you'd need to prove that said will of god exists and that you can interpret it accurately, which, unless you missed it, was the entire purpose of this argument in the first place.

So morals are not a good argument for the existence of god. In fact, if you examine the bible and its morality, it's entirely fair to say that we do not derive our morals from the Christian God - a God who sanctions slavery, genocide, mass ****, infinite punishment for finite rewards (the single most unjust thing I can imagine), execution for actions that cause no harm, human sacrifice (and no, I don't mean Isaac, I mean Jephthah and his daughter), and the like. Rather, we get them from the world around us, from our evolved empathy.

No argument here. A model of ethics can be solely derived from logical relations alone, so long as it's consistent and non-contradictory. And I would also assert that a moral philosophy is only as useful as it's ability to be applied in the actual world. Otherwise, your model exists in a vacuum, and achieves nothing. As a result of this, God, or any kind of deity or external standard, needn't be invoked at all in the formulation of moral philosophy.

This is why Consequentialist ethics is the only kind of ethics that make sense to me. Deontology holds that morality is contingent on one's moral duties (i.e. you have to do what's right), and Virtue Ethics on what we should be as people (i.e. one's character). The former refers to some external standard independent of human experience (Judeo-Christian ethics are deontologist), and the latter doesn't have much explanatory power. Both seem circular (you have do what's right because you have to do what's right VS you have to be a good person because you have to be a good person).

My working model is consequential. There's no circularity because it's conditional (IF-THEN). It gives you the math to account for things we already innately know -- don't steal, treat others kindly, respect autonomy and consent, etc. etc.

So in all, I agree with your position, though I've taken the opportunity to expand on your ideas.

So let us continue to be kind to one another -- not because someone or something else tells us we should, but because we want to, purely and simply. 8)

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Regardless of what you think about god existing or not.

I would say morality is always a byproduct of culture in some shape or form. On top of that life experience can shape that.

No matter how one views the subject, the fact remains those secular organization or lack of them plus what you go through in life can shape how your morals will turn out.This is also right directly citing the bible on how it could or could not be gods or christain morals isn't really gonna be fruitful.

Slavery was an A-ok thing til about 200-300 years ago, womens rights were barely even a thing. Killing someone for just stealing an apple was ok even if the country was religious.

Society and the people around you shape you into what you are and what morals you hav. Religion can have an affect o this as well from one perspective or another.

I'd also be careful of taking the entire bible at face value.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Regardless of what you think about god existing or not.

I would say morality is always a byproduct of culture in some shape or form. On top of that life experience can shape that.

No matter how one views the subject, the fact remains those secular organization or lack of them plus what you go through in life can shape how your morals will turn out.

It kind of goes without saying that past and present moral attitudes do arise from various (intersecting) factors -- culture, experience, environment, history, and biology. And since these factors vary from place to place (on the small and large scale), you'll invariably get a variation in moral outlooks from one society/culture/nation/group to another.

Do you agree or disagree with theistic moral systems (divine command, objective morality, etc.)? Do you agree or disagree with secular moral systems (derivations from axioms, subjective morality, etc.)? Where do you think moral consideration is centered (actions, duties, character, etc.)?

These are the questions this thread raises. I'd invite you to address them, if you have anything to contribute.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

It kind of goes without saying that past and present moral attitudes do arise from various (intersecting) factors -- culture, experience, environment, history, and biology. And since these factors vary from place to place (on the small and large scale), you'll invariably get a variation in moral outlooks from one society/culture/nation/group to another.

Do you agree or disagree with theistic moral systems (divine command, objective morality, etc.)? Do you agree or disagree with secular moral systems (derivations from axioms, subjective morality, etc.)? Where do you think moral consideration is centered (actions, duties, character, etc.)?

These are the questions this thread raises. I'd invite you to address them, if you have anything to contribute.

That's a hard one.

And an issue I've been contemplating when I have been watching my favorite anime this season death parade.

I think objective morality is about situations and ultimately where on the grey scale it falls on.

I think something can be wrong but still possible to justify.

Objective morality is possible but even then it's not that simple. People can still make morally bad decisions but it's possible to justify the actions.

Character and actions are where it is focused on. There might be a divine command or not, but in the end it's looking at the actions and asking why?

Might seem like I am being non committal in this, I probably am, but it's kinda tricky for me to give a definite answer when I think morality has a lot if shades of grey because without considering actions, character and situations how can a person look at a persons actions?

You can say killing is wrong, but is if always wrong?

That's How I see it.

 

[Sehnsucht]

That's a hard one.

And an issue I've been contemplating when I have been watching my favorite anime this season death parade.

I think objective morality is about situations and ultimately where on the grey scale it falls on.

I think something can be wrong but still possible to justify.

Objective morality is possible but even then it's not that simple. People can still make morally bad decisions but it's possible to justify the actions.

Character and actions are where it is focused on. There might be a divine command or not, but in the end it's looking at the actions and asking why?

Might seem like I am being non committal in this, I probably am, but it's kinda tricky for me to give a definite answer when I think morality has a lot if shades of grey because without considering actions, character and situations how can a person look at a persons actions?

You can say killing is wrong, but is if always wrong?

That's How I see it.

Objective morality holds that there is a Definitive Right and a Definitive Wrong to which all persons and acts are subject to. It is "objective" because it exists independent of human subjectivity. You can't argue against it, because it is factual. Like gravitation and Dijon mustard, Right and Wrong are like forces or rules that exist in nature.

But if you hold that perhaps it's not so simple, that you have to evaluate moral scenarios on their own merits, or on a case by case basis, then perhaps you disagree with (or perhaps reject) the existence of objective moral standards. Morality then becomes subjective -- it is up to the parties involved to be the arbiters of moral value, and not some external standard or guide or reference that exists independent of human experience.

So what do we appeal to in our moral evaluation, if there are no convenient external standards to reference (e.g. divine or authoritative edicts)? This is the question that seems to vex you. In the absence of any clear guidelines, we have to form systems based on consensus. A good starting point would be taking into account the facts at hand -- the things that influence and/or drive human action and interaction. From there, you can infer and derive moral frameworks that are as consistent with our experience as possible.

But I ramble. Point being that "shades of greyness" make binary morality highly impractical, which is why more nuanced and/or comprehensive systems serve us better.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think a good way to think of objective morality is Dillahunty's chessboard analogy.

The rules of chess are abitrary and subjective. We need to set a definition of the rules of chess first and foremost - what is our win condition, how do the pieces move, et cetera. But once we have those definitions, it is no longer subjective whether a move is allowed (just like it is not subjective whether or not we can fly), and it is no longer subjective whether a certain allowed move will lead you towards the goal you're after!

So for example, we know the laws of physics are not exactly subjective. We know what moves we can make. And we can define our goal as something along the lines of the secular morality we described earlier. At that point, our actions are no longer subjective. Under those conditions, we can clearly say that, say, murder is objectively immoral.

 

[Sehnsucht]

That sounds like wordplay. It is objectively the case that we've subjectively decided that X is (im)permissible.

The game analogy is apt. Once the rules are defined, you hold to them. But that's to be expected when you start applying a moral philosophy in the actual world.

I still wouldn't call it an objective morality, though, because the rules of our system are in principle mutable (unlike the apparent laws of physics, which are certainly exploitable, but not mutable). Ours becomes a subjective morality with objective rules for play and ways for winning or losing.

You could use "objective morality" as a shorthand for such a definition. But that might confuse the other definition of objective morality, which is most commonly proposed by theists (i.e. an external, immutable, independent standard to which we must all conform).

I agree overall, though the layers of context should always be kept in mind when invoking terms like "objective" and "subjective", because it might not always obvious what these terms might be referring to (e.g. rationales and justifications, rules and strategies, etc.).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That sounds like wordplay. It is objectively the case that we've subjectively decided that X is (im)permissible.

Err, not exactly. It is objectively the case that we've subjectively decided that Z is our goal state. And then whether or not X is impermissible depends on whether it violates that goal state, and that is objective in the setting of said goal. But here's the thing - our decision of Z is not entirely subjective, and certainly not arbitrary. There are very real mental and physical concerns in play there, based on the fact that we are human beings in a physical world. So given that...

I still wouldn't call it an objective morality, though, because the rules of our system are in principle mutable (unlike the apparent laws of physics, which are certainly exploitable, but not mutable). Ours becomes a subjective morality with objective rules for play and ways for winning or losing.

You could use "objective morality" as a shorthand for such a definition. But that might confuse the other definition of objective morality, which is most commonly proposed by theists (i.e. an external, immutable, independent standard to which we must all conform).

I reject this, because the rules of our system are, in principle, dependent on the laws of physics! We base our morality upon the laws which govern the universe and how they interact with other living beings. That gives us a path to a certain level of objectivity - perhaps not to the same degree as the "external, immutable, independent standard", but that standard still falls prey to the Euthyphro Dilemma.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Err, not exactly. It is objectively the case that we've subjectively decided that Z is our goal state. And then whether or not X is impermissible depends on whether it violates that goal state, and that is objective in the setting of said goal. But here's the thing - our decision of Z is not entirely subjective, and certainly not arbitrary. There are very real mental and physical concerns in play there, based on the fact that we are human beings in a physical world. So given that...

I reject this, because the rules of our system are, in principle, dependent on the laws of physics! We base our morality upon the laws which govern the universe and how they interact with other living beings. That gives us a path to a certain level of objectivity - perhaps not to the same degree as the "external, immutable, independent standard", but that standard still falls prey to the Euthyphro Dilemma.

There are real factors that we are subject to, but we can ignore them if we so wished. By this, I mean things like empathy and conscience and autonomy and probability and desire and values and so on. These things are factors relevant to our agency, and it is the degree to which we place any weight on any of them that concerns us. We have the power to influence things. But we don't have power to influence things beyond our control, such as how we're bound to the force of gravity, or that we're humans, and so on.

Which is why I bring up notion of otherwise-arbitrariness and subjectivity. It is objectively true that in order to survive, I need to eat. And it is objectively true that in order to survive, other people need to eat. That doesn't mean that should share my food with others. Nor does it mean I should steal or hoard. We can't get around things we have no control over -- the requirement of food, for instance -- but we can decide how we approach that requirement.

And since there are no pre-packaged, convenient handbooks existing independent of ourselves, there's nothing telling us what approach we should take. It is something we must decide for ourselves. Whatever approach we do take will thus be subjective, formed by consensus, and will be arbitrary, in that whatever outcome we do take, we could have chosen any other.

But we can use objective facts about our experience and the actual world (like the laws of physics, as you note) to inform our decision. A system that both reflects our reality and coheres with it is bound to yield better and more consistent results than if it didn't. The important thing to note, though, is that we are not obligated to use such objective realities to guide our moral reasoning. We're not obligated to do anything at all, one way or another. In the absence of obligation, we are left only with what we choose to do, whether collectively or individually.

So that's what I mean by all the terms I've been invoking. There are objective rules to chess, and objective ways to go about winning. But the rules don't have to be that way, since unlike the laws of physics, we set the terms of chess. The thing we call "chess" could take up various forms; it has the form it does because that's just the way we ended up deciding it should be.

I don't think we disagree on the whole. I just want to be clear in how we're both using "objective" and "subjective", here.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

There are real factors that we are subject to, but we can ignore them if we so wished.

Just like we could ignore any "objective" moral guidelines. If we can ignore the effects of physics on our own physiology, what can't we ignore? I know you're not saying these objective guidelines exist, but are you saying that moral objectivity doesn't exist?

...Meh. Sorry, can't think deep right now.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Just like we could ignore any "objective" moral guidelines. If we can ignore the effects of physics on our own physiology, what can't we ignore? I know you're not saying these objective guidelines exist, but are you saying that moral objectivity doesn't exist?

...Meh. Sorry, can't think deep right now.

I would say that moral objectivity is subjectively determined. Once a system of rules is in place, and if you want to hold to this system and all it entails, then there are objective ways to proceed to achieve your goal(s). If you don't want or care to hold to such a system, then you have zero obligation to follow through with its prescriptions. Whatever objectivity there is in these secular models is thus context-dependent.

We can ignore whatever we want. There's nothing in place to tell us what we should or shouldn't deem significant, beyond whatever we decide based on whatever criteria we devise. I need to eat to survive, but if I don't want to survive, I have no necessary obligation to seek out food. Now, I personally do want to survive, so I do want to seek out food. But it remains that I could desire otherwise, and the fact that such choices can be made should be accounted for.

This object-subject affair can get pretty tangled, apparently. I'm wondering if we're basically saying the same things using different terms, circling around one another as a result. But either way, it's not too big a deal.

 

[ComatoseAngel]

So @Maven89 went into this subject in the "what counts for evidence as god" thread, and I figure it deserves its own thread. Specifically, morality in theistic and secular moral systems, along with the moral argument for the existence of god.

I figure we can start with morality in the respective systems, because once you get past the idea that morality cannot exist without god, the moral argument for the existence of god falls to pieces.

--

First of all, morality in theistic moral systems is fairly simple. Morality is typically (I'm just gonna say by my definition of "theistic moral system") derived from the will of a god, a "higher power", and is typically defined in such systems as "that which conforms to the will of god". By this definition, it is trivial to show that without god there can be no morality - after all, if there is no god, there is nothing to conform to and morality becomes meaningless.

Now, I have some serious issues with this definition of morality. For starters, it's entirely independent of any sort of human interest. If god declared it morally right to slowly skin and torture each other to death, then that would be "moral". Every single one of you can say right now that that would be a problem - those who say they would consider that moral simply because god said so are lying. We all instinctively know that there's something wrong with that.

What's more, at that point, I fail to see why I should care about what is or is not moral. If morality has nothing to do with us, and something is moral based simply on the pronouncements of a supernatural being, then equating that definition with the typical dictionary definition for "moral" of "that which is virtuous or good" is a complete equivocation fallacy, akin to someone up on a ladder fixing your roof asking you to pass him more nails, and you giving him a jar of toenail clippings. If god tells you to murder your child, is it virtuous to do it?

The fact is that theistic moral systems offer us no morality to speak of. There is no way to determine what is or is not righteous, because for any command we get from on high, we still have to make a moral judgment - we need to either judge that the commandment is virtuous, or we have to judge that the command-giver is virtuous - otherwise, we cannot be sure that the command is moral. And if we judge the command-giver as moral because he gives the command that he is moral, then we're stuck in a circle.

--

So how do we go about determining what is and is not moral?

Secular moral systems vary greatly, but the one I'm going to present to you is based largely on two things: firstly, our definition of "moral" as "that which furthers the rights, freedoms, and happiness of individual humans and of society", and secondly, the recognition that humans are, by and large, similar. Not all the same, but for any given human, you can make a few statements - life is generally preferable to death; pleasure is generally preferable to pain; et cetera.

From this, you can derive a fairly large number of moral pronouncements just on the basis of empathy - murder is wrong, because I would not like to be murdered (and egocentric morality* is self-refuting). For those who would like to be murdered, murder is wrong because I know it would be something others would not like, and I would not like to have things happen to me which I do not like.

Now, could this be morally wrong? Could there be some absolute moral pronouncements somewhere that offer a completely different morality? Sure! But in this case, we're actually left with a result that makes sense. It's good for humanity and good for us.

*Egocentric morality is basically "it's wrong for you to do X to me, but fine for me to do X to you" - this just doesn't work, because if that's how morals were set up, and two people did X to each other, both would expect the other to be, morally, in the wrong, while expecting themselves to be morally in the right. It's self-refuting, and thus as a result moral maxims cannot be egocentric. This is not to ignore significant differences - if I feed you chocolate and you feed me chocolate, and you're deathly allergic to chocolate, it's not egocentric morality to claim that different rules apply.

--

So finally, The Moral Argument. This argument, in its quintessential form, states:

1. If God does not exist, morality does not exist.
2. Morality exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The first premise is simply wrong on a number of levels. Unless you want to shoehorn in a very specific definition, morality can exist without god. If we want to define morality as I did above when talking about theistic morality, then premise two falls flat, because divine fiat is something that must be demonstrated. It's that equivocation fallacy from before again. Simply because Humans do not go around killing each other does not mean that morality exists when your definition of morality is "that which conforms to the will of god" - you'd need to prove that said will of god exists and that you can interpret it accurately, which, unless you missed it, was the entire purpose of this argument in the first place.

--

So morals are not a good argument for the existence of god. In fact, if you examine the bible and its morality, it's entirely fair to say that we do not derive our morals from the Christian God - a God who sanctions slavery, genocide, mass ****, infinite punishment for finite rewards (the single most unjust thing I can imagine), execution for actions that cause no harm, human sacrifice (and no, I don't mean Isaac, I mean Jephthah and his daughter), and the like. Rather, we get them from the world around us, from our evolved empathy.



Thoughts? Discussion?

If you claim an absolute morality, then you claim there is a moral law by which to determine right from wrong.
If you claim a moral law, then you imply a moral lawgiver.
If each person is the lawgiver, then it can’t be an absolute morality.
If the majority cannot be the lawgiver of absolute moral laws, because the majority changes what is moral over time and place. For absolute morality to exist, the lawgiver must be absolute and unchanging.
Without an unchanging lawgiver, you cannot have an absolute moral law.
If you claim morality that is not absolute, all you can claim is that it is your preference.
Some people think you should love your neighbors, others think it is perfect fine to eat their neighbors.
Neither can claim anything other than subjective moral opinion.
Those who claim that there is no moral law will be the first to protest when they are wronged.
In conclusion, there is a moral law.
The question only remains, who, if not us, is the lawgiver?

 

[iCrash]

I would disagree with morality being strictly theistic.
What we view as moral evolves over time, slavery for example is something that is condoned by certain Religions, or allowed in certain circumstances (I.E: Christianity), but the idea of owning another person is something we find horrible in modern times.

 

[Mgl]

Im not a fan of these big fancy words you people use, but yeah most of our morals come from religion. Like or not fear of Gods wrath for the most part was what kept us from killing each-other or cheating back in the day. However stuff changed, our society has become stable enough and we can have decide what we as a group deem moral. We can now argue against gods law and substitute our own.

 

[Whia]

I’ll throw this into the ring:

Objective moral duties do not exist. It’s an incoherent concept.

And I’d argue this remains true even if the Abrahamic god exists.

Edit: I haven’t read any of the 2015 posts yet so it’s possible I’m rehashing old **** here.

 

[Sucumbio]

Lol I know right? Iirc such reasoning leads it the is/ought problem which pretty much sums it up. Though some debaters myself included attempted {poorly} to play devils advocate.

 

[BXBX]

Im not a fan of these big fancy words you people use, but yeah most of our morals come from religion. Like or not fear of Gods wrath for the most part was what kept us from killing each-other or cheating back in the day. However stuff changed, our society has become stable enough and we can have decide what we as a group deem moral. We can now argue against gods law and substitute our own.

I don't think so. 1. People still kill each other to this day very much and always have, so if anything you would have to describe to what extent religion reduced homocide. 2. Even animals from the same species restrain from killing their own members. For example snakes wrestle for mating rights even though if they really wanted to win they'd use their venom. Animals like wolves, lions, tigers practice hunting as pups, but they know not to kill each other. etc.

 

[Mgl]

I don't think so. 1. People still kill each other to this day very much and always have, so if anything you would have to describe to what extent religion reduced homocide. 2. Even animals from the same species restrain from killing their own members. For example snakes wrestle for mating rights even though if they really wanted to win they'd use their venom. Animals like wolves, lions, tigers practice hunting as pups, but they know not to kill each other. etc.

1.) yes, thats what I was implying. 2.) No animal is as diverse as humans, we have like 200 different variants that have to coexist. So one species of snake not killing its own doesn't mean it won't kill another species.

 

[SherrdreamZ]

Funny how a thread like this exist's on this site... That being said God is perfect in knowledge and wisdom and exist's outside our comprehension of time, space and relative perception of our world. Why he directs what is good is because he sees things from an eternal perspective. Thinking about what can exist, if it is exclusively for the joy, safety and prosperity of all people is what it means to follow Jesus Christ.

Faith is more of a gradually built relationship that starts with asking questions out into the universe. If we humble ourselves and truly and sincerely seek God out he will answer you in a way that you will percieve. He knows each of us better than we know ourselves. This world does not remotely run on Gods principles, even if for the moment the world is calm that illusion can be shattered in an instant when people dont care for the welfare and happiness of others.

How big is that leap of justifying squashing someone in a business sense, vs crushing them emotionally, mentally and then physically. Selfishness and Pride are such a massive downfall because they will inevitably destroy just like sin destroys ourselves, others and our relationship with God. Who is to say what is "just" or "neccicary" other than men with illusions of grandeur that presume they know what is best to steer humanities evolution the way they see fit? Politics, Religion(s) and Rulers headed by (Humans) do not have any right to exude power over another as they are corruptible...

If we truly think evil in the highest places have no power over us we have bought into a false sense of security that will only exist as long as the charade is profitable or technology reaches the point of absolute subjugation. God himself knows the ends of these things and wants to call us out of that life caught in the web of lies. We have eternal potential as beings with Gods creative power to manifest things through our spirit.

If Morals are relative to groupthink we are absolutely doomed as humanity is NOT perfect like God is. If Morality is subjective to the whims of self it Is dangerous to ourselves and others. What's worse is it is detrimental to our spiritual growth and relationship with our creator. If morals can be delegated and declared by one power, if they are not Holy, Righteous, Selfless, Gracefilled and above all Loving you should not follow their direction...

However through the Holy Spirit revealed under the grace of Christ all things are brought to remembrance and WE DO have a Father who has each and every humans best interest at heart. He hates sin because all it does is destroy, and separate us "his children" from him our creator who loves all living things with an absolute unconditional love. If we cause pain or destroy ourselves, others or reject holy principles after knowing God personally in spirit we cause him great distress.

It's still worth it to seek out Jesus Christ even if you dont know if God is real or not. "Seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened". This is his promise to you and it stands until this world passes away in humanity caused desolation. I didnt think I would write all that... However I left the entirety of my life behind to be led by him 2 years ago, and even in my infantile foolishness "being addicted to Smash Bros since I was 9 years old" he still stands by me as I trust in him and seek to serve and be a light in his "likeness".

 

[BXBX]

1.) yes, thats what I was implying.

No it's not what you were implying. There is no evidence to suggest that religion is what "kept us" from killing each other, as homocide has existed as far as human existence was documented and after the conception of religion.

2.) No animal is as diverse as humans, we have like 200 different variants that have to coexist. So one species of snake not killing its own doesn't mean it won't kill another species.

What you just wrote makes no sense. You should figure out what words like "variant" and "species" actually mean first. They have specific meanings in biology.

 

[Mgl]

No it's not what you were implying. There is no evidence to suggest that religion is what "kept us" from killing each other, as homocide has existed as far as human existence was documented and after the conception of religion.



What you just wrote makes no sense. You should figure out what words like "variant" and "species" actually mean first. They have specific meanings in biology.

Ok let me elaborate.
1.) Obviously murder has always been a thing, when I said it stopped us from murdering people I meant that it strongly dis encouraged murder. I just used a bit of exaggeration.

2.) Im using terms based on there definitions, not there meaning in biology. What I meant was that there are a lot of different types of humans that have agreed not to murder each other, the same can't be said for any other animal.

 

[BXBX]

Ok let me elaborate.
1.) Obviously murder has always been a thing, when I said it stopped us from murdering people I meant that it strongly dis encouraged murder. I just used a bit of exaggeration.

Exaggeration or misleading and uninformative? I don't see why what you say should be true. Also let's not pretend like religions never supported murder, or that people never kill in the name of religion.

2.) Im using terms based on there definitions, not there meaning in biology. What I meant was that there are a lot of different types of humans that have agreed not to murder each other, the same can't be said for any other animal.

I'd say there are more breeds of dogs then there are human ancestries.

 

[Mgl]

Exaggeration or misleading and uninformative? I don't see why what you say should be true. Also let's not pretend like religions never supported murder, or that people never kill in the name of religion. I'd say there are more breeds of dogs then there are human ancestries.

Don't be like that. I didn't mean to be misleading, but know that you understand what I mean and thats all that matters. If you want proof compare our laws to the commandments, their very similar. This is because most of our rules are derived from them. Yes religion can lead to murder, but you can make the argument that overall it helped murder rates.

Also dogs were bred to be friendly.

 

[BXBX]

Don't be like that. I didn't mean to be misleading, but know that you understand what I mean and thats all that matters. If you want proof compare our laws to the commandments, their very similar. This is because most of our rules are derived from them. Yes religion can lead to murder, but you can make the argument that overall it helped murder rates.

Also dogs were bred to be friendly.

lol "you can make the argument"? Then why don't you, like I've been asking this entire time.

 

[Whia]

Funny how a thread like this exist's on this site... That being said God is perfect in knowledge and wisdom and exist's outside our comprehension of time, space and relative perception of our world. Why he directs what is good is because he sees things from an eternal perspective. Thinking about what can exist, if it is exclusively for the joy, safety and prosperity of all people is what it means to follow Jesus Christ.

The issue with this statement is you can't demonstrate any of it, literally by your own admission. If he's outside our comprehension in every possible way, then by definition you're not equipped to remark on his nature. "We can't comprehend god" is a self-defeating apologetic.

If Morals are relative to groupthink we are absolutely doomed as humanity is NOT perfect like God is. If Morality is subjective to the whims of self it Is dangerous to ourselves and others. What's worse is it is detrimental to our spiritual growth and relationship with our creator. If morals can be delegated and declared by one power, if they are not Holy, Righteous, Selfless, Gracefilled and above all Loving you should not follow their direction...

This is an argument to consequences, and is a fallacy. "If x was true, that would be bad" isn't an argument worth considering.

 

[Mgl]

lol "you can make the argument"? Then why don't you, like I've been asking this entire time.

I'm not here to argue, I was just explaining my point of view. And there is no concrete evidence because this stuff is pre history so arguing this makes no sense.