“In your world-view, are certain acts immoral because your god says they are?”
My answer was, “No.”
That is correct but not for the reasons this person thinks. Actually the whole issue of objective morality is, for me at least, one of the most compelling evidences for the existence of God. Like the Laws of Logic and the Laws of Mathematics, Objective Morality is not invented, it is discovered. But where did these things come from? The formal argument goes like this:
. If God does not exist, then objective morals, values and obligations (def. below) do not exist
. But we know from our interactions with other people that objective morals, values and obligations DO exist. We know, and we know absolutely when someone does “wrong” to us.
. Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion is also true: God Exists.
Just as physical laws are fully realised in the physical world, objective moral laws are fully realised in Jesus and Father God. As I stated above, our daily interactions with others shows we believe without doubt that objective moral order is as real and independent of our recognition as is the natural order of things. Our perceptions of natural and moral laws are givens of our experience.
People who are God’s enemies and who therefore can’t possibly understand the Bible, claim that God acts in a capricious and arbitrary manner. That is simply not true. The order of things to which this neophyte alludes would be something like, “If God said (as do those atheists who favour eugenics) that saving the lives of disabled children is wrong, then it would be wrong.”
Here is where she is wrong but not for the reasons she imagines.
. What God commands or permits is good and what He forbids is wrong, bad, evil, self-destructive. Why? Because:
. Objective moral Goodness and Obligation are based on God’s character.
Therefore, God’s commands are not arbitrary, for they are the inescapable expression of His Just and Loving nature.
. And, since our moral obligations are grounded in the Divine commands, moral values and duties do not exist independent of God.
This is what it means for morality to be objective vs. subjective, selective or relative to the situation. Morality is not based on the individual’s character or personality or level of empathy, or that person’s likes or dislikes, sanity or insanity. Nor is morality based on community standards. Community standards may or may not cohere with what is objectively morally right or wrong. The killing of 6,000,000 Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals was right by the community standards of Germany in the 1940's but it was objectively wrong. American Style Slavery was right by the community standards in the 19th century but it as objectively wrong.
Some might ask, “Why pick God’s nature as definitive of the Good?” That’s easy.
God, by definition, is the Greatest Conceivable Being. A Being which is the paradigm of goodness is greater than one which merely exemplifies goodness. Almost everyone recognises that for morals to be objective there must be some ultimate standard of value.
God is simply the least arbitrary stopping point.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
The formal argument goes like this: If God does not exist, then objective morals, values and obligations (def. below) do not exist
That's not an argument, that's an assertion. I could just easily assert "If Queen Unicorn does not existn, then objective morals, values, and obligations do not exist". You have to tie the two concepts together through causality before you can make such a claim and expect to have it respected.
Well, at least one obviously pro-Holocaust racist likes your point.
Angie dear, You need to read the whole post. If you had, you'd see there is a connection between point one and point two. Here it is. God, by definition, is the Greatest Conceivable Being. A Being which is the PARADIGM of goodness is greater than one which merely exemplifies goodness. Almost everyone recognises that for morals to be objective there must be some ultimate standard of value.
God is simply the least arbitrary stopping point.
First, you're comparing a (nonexistant) deity, defining it with characteristics ("highest conceivable good", and presumably also triple-omni?) to morality (the label we apply to good vs. bad choices). By defining morality as something which "exemplifies goodness" and not by all its other traits you beg the question of an unprovable assertion (namely that god is good). Therefore you observe the one thing (morality) and because of your presupposition that a god exists who is the highest conceivable good, you choose to see that the arbiter of this good is this particular god. Your choice to interpret the existence of morals the way you have is not one grounded in logic.
Argument 1
a) My god is a necessary condition for objective morals, values and obligations.
b) Objective morality, etc. exist.
c) Therefore my god exists.
I have restated your argument positivity. Parts 'a' and 'b' are just assertions. You'll have to prove them first without begging the question.
On your second argument: Douglas Gasking would like a word with you.
a. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
b. The merit of an achievement is the product of its intrinsic quality, and the ability of its creator.
c. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
d. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
e. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
f. Therefore, God does not exist.
But we know from our interactions with other people that objective morals, values and obligations DO exist. We know, and we know absolutely when someone does “wrong” to us.
That's not objectiveness, that's subjectivity. Since it is only true under certain conditions, at certain times, in certain places or for certain people.
Angie - I'm not saying that you can't have a highly sophisticated moral / value system. I'm saying that without God, there aren't any OBJECTIVE morals, values and obligations. Without God, all we have are preferences, desires and opinions. Yet, when someone wrongs us, sexual assault for example, we know and we know absolutely that it really WAS wrong. Even though the equivolent of sexual assault, theft, murder etc take place all the time in the animal kingdom. We know and we know without doubt that we are different.
"Your choice to interpret the existence of morals the way you have is not one grounded in logic."
We'll if God does not exist then you're right. I think there are many very good reasons to think that a Creator God does exist. If I may, however, if God does not exist, you assertion that there are OBJECTIVE morals, values and obligations is not one grounded in logic.
============
Flute - Argument 1
a) My god is a necessary condition for objective morals, values and obligations.
No. While I obviously believe that the Creator God of the Bible is the Supernatural creator of the universe, technically, all I’m saying is that “a” supreme being must exist for “objective” morals, values and obligations to exist. As I said to Angie, this is not an argument as to whether morals and values exist or whether you can be a moral person without God. It’s all about there being a base for our morals and values. And I might add, if there is not God then there are certainly no obligations for anyone to obey anything. Without God, a rapist is just someone thumbing his nose at social convention.
============
“Douglas Gasking”
I assume that’s part of a comedy routine?
==============
“That's not objectiveness, that's subjectivity. Since it is only true under certain conditions, at certain times, in certain places or for certain people."
So sexual assault might be wrong for woman A but not woman B? C’mon Fute. You know better than that. Genital mutilation is right for one culture but not another? You don’t believe that. ----- Do you?
I'm saying that without God, there aren't any OBJECTIVE morals, values and obligations. Without God, all we have are preferences, desires and opinions.
You haven't shown that to be true. You have a presupposition or preconception that a god is the only possible origin for objective morals, values, etc. You haven't done anything to show that that's true, or that any other equally reasonable explanation for the existence of objective morals (such as being an evolved, social species with many intricate relationships) isn't equally possible.
Yet, when someone wrongs us, sexual assault for example, we know and we know absolutely that it really WAS wrong.
Yes, again, I don't claim that objective morality doesn't exist.
Even though the equivolent of sexual assault, theft, murder etc take place all the time in the animal kingdom. We know and we know without doubt that we are different.
Well, we're certainly different in some ways but shockingly similar in others (ie, on a genetic level). What conclusion are you attempting to draw based on the fact that humans are a distinct species? (And personally, I always allow for a little doubt in "I know" statements unless I provide backup.)
We'll if God does not exist then you're right. Thanks.
I think there are many very good reasons to think that a Creator God does exist.
I disagree (which is why I'm not a deist) but even if a creator god did exist, suggesting that the creator of the physical world is ALSO the *only possible explanation* for the objective morality is just refusing to ask questions or look for other possible answers. It's not the best way to learn what's true.
If I may, however, if God does not exist, you assertion that there are OBJECTIVE morals, values and obligations is not one grounded in logic.
Again, this goes back to your own refusal to entertain other alternative possibilities. This is an argument from incredulity - you can't think up another way morals came to be, therefore, god did it. It doesn't help up to scrutiny, as an argument.
This goes back to your own refusal to entertain other alternative possibilities."
So explain it to me. What are the alternative explanations? How does having you, or your community or even your country believing something to be right or wrong, make it objectively right or wrong?
Are you suggesting that because the majority of the people in the world thought homosexuality to be wrong, it really WAS wrong, but now because people's beliefs have changed, it's suddenly become right? How about when the majority of people thought slavery was right. What it actually - no - objectively right?
How does discovering a piece of objective right “make” it right. After all, the very fact that you discovered it to be right means that it was right before you discovered it to be so. If because of survival you simply decide to make it "right" then it's a decision and not an objective truth.
You use the example of child torture as being universally wrong. That’s simply not true. While there are admittedly not a lot of people who think that torturing children is right, there are some. It was just discovered a couple weeks ago that someone in Palestine held and tortured an Israeli child for three years in an attempt to coerce concessions from the Israeli government.
Why don’t we use love instead as an example of a universally accepted good. Not in animals of course but . . . for the sake of argument, what are the alternative explanations of love being an objective good?
And I might add, if there is not God then there are certainly no obligations for anyone to obey anything. Without God, a rapist is just someone thumbing his nose at social convention.
Funny you'd mention that.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
“Douglas Gasking”
I assume that’s part of a comedy routine?
Do you find your own logic amusing?
Genital mutilation is right for one culture but not another? You don’t believe that. ----- Do you?
Genesis 17
10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
...technically, all I’m saying is that “a” supreme being must exist for “objective” morals, values and obligations to exist.
Morals are not objective. You may try and find extreme examples to try and prove they are, but the fact you have to go to such extremes is telling in itself.
Male circumcision enhances sensation. Female mutilation is to ensure that no orgasm happens by eliminating clitoral sensation. Are you actually trying to compare the two?
"Morals are not objective."
Maybe you could help Angie. She think objecive morals and obligations exist. She just doesn't know why or how that could be.
Male circumcision enhances sensation.
No. No, it doesn't.
"There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males."
American Academy of Pediatrics
"the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males."
Boyle
In a 2007 study, Sorrells et al., using monofilament touch-test mapping, found that the foreskin contains the most sensitive parts of the penis, noting that these parts are lost to circumcision. They also found that "the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine-touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis."
From wiki.
Makarios shows morals are subjective by redefining some genital mutilation as good. The disagreement is an example of how morals are subjective. Way to go, Makarios!
(Too much information!)
Yes.
Who knew? I'll sue my parents.
Look to see if it's in what? Your hand? I told you Glen. You need to quit drinking by this time of day. Or start after lunch instead of at breakfast.
More speculation on my part but I think you use either dismissive or obnoxious answers when you are flummoxed.
You are yet to prove that morals are objective.
Are you suggesting that you DON'T know when someone does something wrong to you? Someone steals from you and you wonder if it was ok to do? Or is any example that proves my point going to be called extreme, and therefore not applicable?
Are you suggesting that you DON'T know when someone does something wrong to you?
If someone does me an action that I believe wrongs me, it's subjectively wrong. To be objectively wrong it would have to be wrong universally, for every mind, at every time.
Someone steals from you and you wonder if it was ok to do? Or is any example that proves my point going to be called extreme, and therefore not applicable?
Well you have yet to give an example that proves your point. An example is not wrong because it is extreme, it is wrong because it is not objective. The extremity shows how difficult it is to find _just one_ moral that is objective, let alone _all_ morals being objective.
Sooo, taking what doesn't belong to you is not objectively wrong? Is that what you are saying? Perhaps you are confusing absolute morals with objective morals?
And absolute moral would be, "You must not kill another human being."
And objective moral would be, "You must not murder another human being."
The latter allows for police to do their jobs as well as for self-defence, while the former does not.
Again, are you saying there might be some circumstance where by my cleaning out your bank account might not be wrong. And if so, what might that circumstance be?
I just remembered, you're still supposed to tell me how to get real love without freewill choice and how to get freewill choice without stepping back and allowing exactly that to happen? Remember? You were going to improve on what God has done?
That is STILL not an objective moral.
What is your definition of objective?
Objectivity ... a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.
Again, are you saying there might be some circumstance where by my cleaning out your bank account might not be wrong. And if so, what might that circumstance be?
The subject is "wrong objectively" not "wrong".
I just remembered, you're still supposed to tell me how to get real love without freewill choice and how to get freewill choice without stepping back and allowing exactly that to happen? Remember? You were going to improve on what God has done?
I just re-read that thread. You never asked me how to get real love with freewill. In fact I asked you to show how evidence removes free will. Not faith. Not knowledge. You claimed it did.
While I'm waiting for this evidence I'll listen to this song... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbkrzJjoC5Y&feature=related
Post a Comment