Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective Morality Can Exist Without God

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 12:37:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It has been asserted by several here (surprisingly by Atheists) who assert that objective morality CANNOT exist without a God or that God can ONLY be the source of an objective morality.

The burden of proof is on them who assert that the existence of something is impossible.

So let's see the arguments affirming that God is required for objective morality.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:02:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 12:39:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Do you think objective morality is a good thing geo?

I reject both objective and subjective morality.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:15:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 12:37:13 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It has been asserted by several here (surprisingly by Atheists) who assert that objective morality CANNOT exist without a God or that God can ONLY be the source of an objective morality.

The burden of proof is on them who assert that the existence of something is impossible.

So let's see the arguments affirming that God is required for objective morality.

Not even god could end you nihilists with an "Objective" morality! :P
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:15:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 1:02:11 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
subjective morality.

It's just as existent as You are!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:27:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 1:15:48 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/26/2011 1:02:11 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
subjective morality.

It's just as existent as You are!

proof?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:32:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 1:02:11 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/26/2011 12:39:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Do you think objective morality is a good thing geo?

I reject both objective and subjective morality.

I totally agree with you.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:32:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 1:27:40 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/26/2011 1:15:48 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/26/2011 1:02:11 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
subjective morality.

It's just as existent as You are!

proof?

I wouldn't like it if you strangle a puppy.. I would have you not do so.

Given what I care about... From My perspective... people ought not do such things.

Now.. I'm not saying People shouldn't do such things Given the nature of people.. Or b/c it goes against some Objective standard of what should happen.

Rather I'm saying that I would not have you do such a thing... that I think you ought not.

If you deny this, if you deny subjective morality, your denying how you/I feel... which is an aspect of How you ARE / I AM

if you deny subjective morality.. you deny the existence of people as they are.

Subjective morality is just as real as you are.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:34:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 1:32:45 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Now.. I'm not saying People shouldn't do such things Given the nature of people Generally (/universal human nature).. Or b/c it goes against some Objective standard of what should happen.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:36:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why change the world? It existed long before us and will long after us. The world does not need protection from humans. Morality is an exercise in futility.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:37:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 1:15:19 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/26/2011 12:37:13 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It has been asserted by several here (surprisingly by Atheists) who assert that objective morality CANNOT exist without a God or that God can ONLY be the source of an objective morality.

The burden of proof is on them who assert that the existence of something is impossible.

So let's see the arguments affirming that God is required for objective morality.

Not even god could end you nihilists with an "Objective" morality! :P

and all oughts are rooted in cares....

Godly oughts in Godly cares...

so even God's "morality" is subjective :P

There is No morality that is not...

Oughts do not exist Apart from beings which care... They are notions which are characteristic of beings which care.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:40:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 1:37:28 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

so even God's "morality" is subjective :P



Nobody has a clue to what God's morals are, or even if he has morals.

The closest thing we can guess at is that Jesus told us to love.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:40:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 1:36:20 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Why change the world?

well... the world apparently changes all the time...

And I like it when it's in certain ways more than others.

like if my hand's over a lit flame.. I spontaneously come to wish it wasn't.

If I'm hungry.. I spontaneously care to get food into my mouth.

Similarly.. I care for you to not be a jerk.

It existed long before us and will long after us.
The world does not need protection from humans.
who said it did?? o.O

Morality is an exercise in futility.

Morality is an embrace of your will.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:42:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 1:40:41 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/26/2011 1:36:20 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Why change the world?

well... the world apparently changes all the time...

And I like it when it's in certain ways more than others.

like if my hand's over a lit flame.. I spontaneously come to wish it wasn't.

If I'm hungry.. I spontaneously care to get food into my mouth.

Similarly.. I care for you to not be a jerk.

It existed long before us and will long after us.
The world does not need protection from humans.
who said it did?? o.O

Morality is an exercise in futility.

Morality is an embrace of your will.

I'm sure glad you are not a god.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:44:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 12:37:13 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It has been asserted by several here (surprisingly by Atheists) who assert that objective morality CANNOT exist without a God or that God can ONLY be the source of an objective morality.

The burden of proof is on them who assert that the existence of something is impossible.

So let's see the arguments affirming that God is required for objective morality.

Harris and Craig are going to be debating this very subject in two weeks at the University of Notre Dame. If I didn't live so far away, I'd go to see it.

I happen to still think Harris has a fairly good argument for an objective moral code in the absence of any deity. I'd suggest his book The Moral Landscape, but if you don't have access to it, this gives you a pretty good idea of what he's working with. ---->

His argument is based on the first principle that morality relates exclusively to the well-being of conscious creatures. I find that first principle to be truly incontrovertible, but I'll let him explain why.

Moreover, lot's of philosophers are materialists and moral realists. It's not all that surprising (or even rare).
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:44:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 1:40:26 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/26/2011 1:37:28 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

so even God's "morality" is subjective :P



Nobody has a clue to what God's morals are, or even if he has morals.

The closest thing we can guess at is that Jesus told us to love.

supposedly god 'loves' you.. he cares for you.

also... he supposedly wants things all sortsa different ways...

You would think it's rooted in what he cares about.. Otherwise.. it can't really be said that he "wants" it Any which way.

if objective morality is rooted in what god cares about.. it's not actually "objective" at all being that it's based upon the subject of God.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:46:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 1:44:39 AM, Freeman wrote:
At 3/26/2011 12:37:13 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It has been asserted by several here (surprisingly by Atheists) who assert that objective morality CANNOT exist without a God or that God can ONLY be the source of an objective morality.

The burden of proof is on them who assert that the existence of something is impossible.

So let's see the arguments affirming that God is required for objective morality.

Harris and Craig are going to be debating this very subject in two weeks at the University of Notre Dame. If I didn't live so far away, I'd go to see it.

I happen to still think Harris has a fairly good argument for an objective moral code in the absence of any deity. I'd suggest his book The Moral Landscape, but if you don't have access to it, this gives you a pretty good idea of what he's working with.

His argument is based on the first principle that morality relates exclusively to the well-being of conscious creatures. I find that first principle to be truly incontrovertible, but I'll let him explain why.

Moreover, [lots] of philosophers are materialists and moral realists. It's not all that surprising (or even rare).
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:46:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 1:44:49 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
if objective morality is rooted in what god cares about.. it's not actually "objective" at all being that it's based upon the subject of God.

now.. sure it's based in something Real...

but so is what I want..

it's rooted in what I care about.

which is Just as much a reality as what any God cares about.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:50:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The reason I said Morality is an exercise in futility is that you could never get a consensus for objective morality, even if you cloned the entire human race. Since subjective morality is relative, does it even even have any meaning? (other than might makes right?)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 1:59:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am sorry Geo, I did not mean to derail your thread by going on a rant about morality.
By all means people, please defend Objective morality, I'll go sit in the corner>>>>
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 2:00:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 1:50:41 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
The reason I said Morality is an exercise in futility is that you could never get a consensus for objective morality, even if you cloned the entire human race. Since subjective morality is relative, does it even even have any meaning? (other than might makes right?)

it's relative... but if you reflect on what you think and why... you can come to be clear with What cares ground your assertions as to how you would have the world.

if you do this.. you can explain what you think.. and how you feel to others...

Lots of people happen to feel quite similarly to each other on lots of things.. So you may be able to sway lots.. and if you have similar cares.. you both can discuss the merits of various actions.. and come to some agreement.

If you realize that you are operating with Different cares.. then it May be futile.. though you can still try to appeal to the other person's cares to get them to do what You would have them do.

Further... you might try to get them to Realize/admit/give in to emotions you share if you think they stomp them down in clinging to some unsupported "standard".

What people care about is NOT guaranteed to be similar enough to come to agreement.. but there Would seem to be a whole bunch of useful broad similarities.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 2:40:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 1:44:39 AM, Freeman wrote:
Harris and Craig are going to be debating this very subject in two weeks at the University of Notre Dame. If I didn't live so far away, I'd go to see it.

Craig will wipe the floor with him. That being said, Shelly Kagan dominated Craig on the same topic a while back...
azander1
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 3:44:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Morality can definitely exist without god. From all these religions we see where god says one thing yet orders and does the complete opposite. The bible is the most immoral book you can ever read.
Randall999
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 5:36:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I see morality as tribal, societal, Darwinian. No need of a God, or gods, however a tribe or society might decide to make use of gods or God for defining their moral code.

Morality, and religion as an offshoot, developed eons ago as a means of tribal survival. Murdering members of your tribe diminished the tribal genetic pool, and thus diminished that tribes genes from flowing in the larger Homo sapiens or Cro magnon pool, etc. Negative (evolution) selection pressure. Thus morals become hard wired in us genetically. But morals, conscious, ethics also flow through human populations as memes. Break the rules and you are expelled from the tribe, or at least shunned, you become lesser in status as reproductive material, and thus less chance of propagating your immoral genes.

In the above sense, e.g. killing or indiscriminately harming a tribe member, morality is objective, because such behavior results in removing the offender from the gene pool. But morality can also be relative in how it fits with what the tribe finds acceptable or not (cultural norms and taboos-- in some parts of the world stoning or murdering a woman in some way is still in vogue for adultery, whereas in most parts of the world adultery will not get you killed, will not result in removing the person doing the stoning from the gene pool).

So some tribes (which could be a church group) rely on mythical savior stories, or Holy books of such stories, or simply mind inventions of gods, or on holy men or women, to provide tribal guidance.

Other tribes (atheists, agnostics) prefer to rely on simple society morality (laws), and on philosophy.

Some individuals (sociopaths, psychopaths, rebels) simply shun and ignore all laws or other guidance forms of morality, and might pay a price for going against the tribes or societies they find themselves part of.

My five cent rant, and I might owe you change.
R
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 6:11:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 12:37:13 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It has been asserted by several here (surprisingly by Atheists) who assert that objective morality CANNOT exist without a God or that God can ONLY be the source of an objective morality.

The burden of proof is on them who assert that the existence of something is impossible.

So let's see the arguments affirming that God is required for objective morality.

The burden of proof is on atheists as we know that something must always reside somewhere.. where does morality reside if not with an eternal God?
The Cross.. the Cross.
Randall999
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 7:55:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 6:11:54 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
The burden of proof is on atheists as we know that something must always reside somewhere.. where does morality reside if not with an eternal God?

Easy. Morality exists in the brain, where all behavior exists. Numerous studies in medicine, psychiatry, psychology, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology have proven this. You do not need supernatural elements for morality. All natural in the brain.

The burden of proof is not on atheists, but on theists, to bring forth such invisible sky gods allegedly responsible for morality. Bring forth your sky god and then we can have a true debate between the natural real world and a supernatural being.
trkwpb
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 8:51:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Morality is nothing more than a tacit agreement as to what's best to maintain social order. Religion has been used to reinforce or modify moral behavior but it exists outside of religion. If morality was based on an unchanging, all-knowing God, would we not have the same moral codes we did thousands of years ago?
So long as my actions do not harm the person or property of a non-consenting other, it's none of your business what I do - Peter McWilliams
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 9:04:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Morality is fallibalist. Their may be an onjective morality but humans don't have the means to understand it or know it. Now, theistic morality is rooted in the belief and definition that God is entity with absolute veracity. God is the truth - what he says is the way of the world. This links to other theological doctrines but that's a lecture in itself.

Geo is right, their can be morality without god.

At 3/26/2011 7:55:59 AM, Randall999 wrote:
Easy. Morality exists in the brain, where all behavior exists. Numerous studies in medicine, psychiatry, psychology, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology have proven this. You do not need supernatural elements for morality. All natural in the brain.

That's not 'morality' thats heed. Your brain heeds and understands things but doesn't create 'morality'.

Experimental science or neuropsychology and it's related fields cannot define whether quasi-material, abstract objects exist. Things like justice, love and morals don't exist, they are abstract objects, they exist only in the mind. These scientists only see the effects of some of these things; whether this be inductively derived through psychoanalysis, PET scan and neuroimagery you are just seeing electrical movements, hormones or neutroreceptors related to some moral positions and not 'morality' itself.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 9:40:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 9:04:18 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Morality is fallibalist. Their may be an onjective morality but humans don't have the means to understand it or know it. Now, theistic morality is rooted in the belief and definition that God is entity with absolute veracity. God is the truth - what he says is the way of the world. This links to other theological doctrines but that's a lecture in itself.

The way God would have things is rooted in his cares.

The way I would have them is rooted in Mine.

The way I care.. Is descriptive of the nature of the world.
it is "the way of the world"

and it is of the same kind of assertion that God makes when he says how things should be.

God's Moral assertions are of the same type as my own.

They're subjective, and based in what you happen to care about.
What you care about is descriptive of the nature of the things.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 9:48:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 9:40:45 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/26/2011 9:04:18 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Morality is fallibalist. Their may be an onjective morality but humans don't have the means to understand it or know it. Now, theistic morality is rooted in the belief and definition that God is entity with absolute veracity. God is the truth - what he says is the way of the world. This links to other theological doctrines but that's a lecture in itself.

The way God would have things is rooted in his cares.

The way I would have them is rooted in Mine.

The way I care.. Is descriptive of the nature of the world.
it is "the way of the world"

and it is of the same kind of assertion that God makes when he says how things should be.

God's Moral assertions are of the same type as my own.

They're subjective, and based in what you happen to care about.
What you care about is descriptive of the nature of the things.

now... you might say "God's cares have Real existence"

and I say 1stly: no they don't

and 2ndly: even if they did... No moreso than do my own.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."