Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

God and Objective Morality

bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 2:44:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is God the only explanation for objective morality? I have seen several people in this forum suggest that this is the case, and I'm interested in seeing a discussion on this topic unfold.

As always, please keep the discourse civil and on-topic.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 3:14:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 2:44:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is God the only explanation for objective morality? I have seen several people in this forum suggest that this is the case, and I'm interested in seeing a discussion on this topic unfold.

Anything non-human that decrees something moral could be said to be objective, so aliens for example, or some A.I. Since the only requirement is to decree right and wrong independantly of human opinion/bias.

As always, please keep the discourse civil and on-topic.

... Which raises the bigger question, if we assume God exists and he has set a moral code, then why should we care about it? Since that code is just God's opinion, and does not necessarily reflect human values. God could just decree suffering good and watch us tear ourselves apart, despite it being against our values.

In that sense, God's morals are subjective in whether or not you ought to accept them over other systems, such as utilitarianism, egoism, etc.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 3:14:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 2:44:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is God the only explanation for objective morality? I have seen several people in this forum suggest that this is the case, and I'm interested in seeing a discussion on this topic unfold.

I don't think there's even such a thing. Every one of our morals is an opinion: subjective. There's no clear, impartial code for morals.

As always, please keep the discourse civil and on-topic.

This is the DDO religion forum. http://m.memegen.com...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 3:18:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 2:44:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is God the only explanation for objective morality? I have seen several people in this forum suggest that this is the case, and I'm interested in seeing a discussion on this topic unfold.

As always, please keep the discourse civil and on-topic.

God is the only explanation for objective morality because he is perfect. his knowledge has no disadvantages. so whatever he says always right no matter what. without God, its all subjective, everyone can use his logic and determine whats right for him. if robbing is good for somebody because he getting rich from it, someone else would say its worng for it hurts or damage somebodys stuff. if you know psychology you will know what stories you read your mind becomes, if you read junky stuff your mind will be junky if your eat junky your body will be junky (credit for ahmed deedat :D)
Never fart near dog
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 4:07:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think theism has the best fit for moral realism (as detailed in my signature), and since I think moral realism is true, then....
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 4:17:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 3:14:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 2:44:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is God the only explanation for objective morality? I have seen several people in this forum suggest that this is the case, and I'm interested in seeing a discussion on this topic unfold.

Anything non-human that decrees something moral could be said to be objective, so aliens for example, or some A.I. Since the only requirement is to decree right and wrong independantly of human opinion/bias.

What an absurd statement. If aliens say that 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it true?


As always, please keep the discourse civil and on-topic.

... Which raises the bigger question, if we assume God exists and he has set a moral code, then why should we care about it? Since that code is just God's opinion, and does not necessarily reflect human values. God could just decree suffering good and watch us tear ourselves apart, despite it being against our values.

Since God would be synonymous with reality, his moral code, although subjective, would also be objective. That is, according to God = according to reality. Human values which are not in line with the will of God are objectively "immoral".


In that sense, God's morals are subjective in whether or not you ought to accept them over other systems, such as utilitarianism, egoism, etc.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 4:25:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 4:17:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/28/2014 3:14:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 2:44:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is God the only explanation for objective morality? I have seen several people in this forum suggest that this is the case, and I'm interested in seeing a discussion on this topic unfold.

Anything non-human that decrees something moral could be said to be objective, so aliens for example, or some A.I. Since the only requirement is to decree right and wrong independantly of human opinion/bias.


What an absurd statement. If aliens say that 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it true?

'True' assumes there is a way something should be. While 2 + 2 = 4, the same is not cognitive for morality until you apply a notion of the way things *ought* to be (which is meaningless absent a conditional).


As always, please keep the discourse civil and on-topic.

... Which raises the bigger question, if we assume God exists and he has set a moral code, then why should we care about it? Since that code is just God's opinion, and does not necessarily reflect human values. God could just decree suffering good and watch us tear ourselves apart, despite it being against our values.


Since God would be synonymous with reality, his moral code, although subjective, would also be objective.

You contradicted yourself in the same sentence? Lol.

That is, according to God = according to reality. Human values which are not in line with the will of God are objectively "immoral".

That's not an argument, that's just a statement of 'all of reality has a moral code' which is subjective to 'all of reality', that does not get to an 'ought', which is the point of morality, at best you would just a statement that you can in accordance with or not with 'all of reality', it doesn't state why we SHOULD act in accordance.


In that sense, God's morals are subjective in whether or not you ought to accept them over other systems, such as utilitarianism, egoism, etc.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 4:40:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 4:25:50 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 4:17:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/28/2014 3:14:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 2:44:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is God the only explanation for objective morality? I have seen several people in this forum suggest that this is the case, and I'm interested in seeing a discussion on this topic unfold.

Anything non-human that decrees something moral could be said to be objective, so aliens for example, or some A.I. Since the only requirement is to decree right and wrong independantly of human opinion/bias.


What an absurd statement. If aliens say that 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it true?

'True' assumes there is a way something should be. While 2 + 2 = 4, the same is not cognitive for morality until you apply a notion of the way things *ought* to be (which is meaningless absent a conditional).


"According to aliens" does not establish objective moral truths anymore than "according to humans". You clearly only have a very superficial understanding of what objective means.

As always, please keep the discourse civil and on-topic.

... Which raises the bigger question, if we assume God exists and he has set a moral code, then why should we care about it? Since that code is just God's opinion, and does not necessarily reflect human values. God could just decree suffering good and watch us tear ourselves apart, despite it being against our values.


Since God would be synonymous with reality, his moral code, although subjective, would also be objective.

You contradicted yourself in the same sentence? Lol.

When applied to the universe as a whole, subjectivity coincides with objectivity. Although subjectivity usually implies non-objectivity, there's nothing in principle which says that "true for a given context" cannot be "objective". Subjective simply means "true for me", and where "me" is reality, subjective and objective are the same.


That is, according to God = according to reality. Human values which are not in line with the will of God are objectively "immoral".

That's not an argument, that's just a statement of 'all of reality has a moral code' which is subjective to 'all of reality', that does not get to an 'ought', which is the point of morality, at best you would just a statement that you can in accordance with or not with 'all of reality', it doesn't state why we SHOULD act in accordance.

"Subjective to all of reality" is indistinguishable from objective. By definition, a moral standard describes how you should act. Thus, the morality of acting in accordance with reality's moral standard is implicit in the standard itself.


In that sense, God's morals are subjective in whether or not you ought to accept them over other systems, such as utilitarianism, egoism, etc.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 4:58:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 4:40:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/28/2014 4:25:50 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 4:17:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/28/2014 3:14:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 2:44:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is God the only explanation for objective morality? I have seen several people in this forum suggest that this is the case, and I'm interested in seeing a discussion on this topic unfold.

Anything non-human that decrees something moral could be said to be objective, so aliens for example, or some A.I. Since the only requirement is to decree right and wrong independantly of human opinion/bias.


What an absurd statement. If aliens say that 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it true?

'True' assumes there is a way something should be. While 2 + 2 = 4, the same is not cognitive for morality until you apply a notion of the way things *ought* to be (which is meaningless absent a conditional).



"According to aliens" does not establish objective moral truths anymore than "according to humans".

And how does "according to all of reality" establish it any differently? They all have true and false statements associated with them. If we have an action, X, it could be judged moral/immoral according to humans, aliens or 'all of reality/God', how is it the case that any are 'right' when they are standardised according to themselves.

The statement 'I like ice cream' is not 'false' if 'all of reality' doesn't like ice cream for example, as they are both subjective statements, they are just different perspectives with different truth conditions. Hence one party (aliens) judging something to be moral/immoral is no more or less correct than another party judging it to be the opposite.

You clearly only have a very superficial understanding of what objective means.

I don't think that's the issue here.

As always, please keep the discourse civil and on-topic.

... Which raises the bigger question, if we assume God exists and he has set a moral code, then why should we care about it? Since that code is just God's opinion, and does not necessarily reflect human values. God could just decree suffering good and watch us tear ourselves apart, despite it being against our values.


Since God would be synonymous with reality, his moral code, although subjective, would also be objective.

You contradicted yourself in the same sentence? Lol.

When applied to the universe as a whole, subjectivity coincides with objectivity. Although subjectivity usually implies non-objectivity, there's nothing in principle which says that "true for a given context" cannot be "objective". Subjective simply means "true for me", and where "me" is reality, subjective and objective are the same.


That is, according to God = according to reality. Human values which are not in line with the will of God are objectively "immoral".

That's not an argument, that's just a statement of 'all of reality has a moral code' which is subjective to 'all of reality', that does not get to an 'ought', which is the point of morality, at best you would just a statement that you can in accordance with or not with 'all of reality', it doesn't state why we SHOULD act in accordance.

"Subjective to all of reality" is indistinguishable from objective.

No, it's really not. Got an argument for this? You seem to be applying a fallacy of sweeping generalization here.

By definition, a moral standard describes how you should act.

Which are necessarily conditional on values. Utilitarianism describes how you should/ought to act if you value utility. Egoism describes how you should/ought to act if you value self-interest. And it seems in your case, your 'objective' moral values describes how you should/ought to act if you value 'all of reality'.

Ergo, it all falls back to a value application (which is necessarily subjective). It at best just gives another perspective to judge actions (like any of the innumerable moral philosophies available).

Thus, the morality of acting in accordance with reality's moral standard is implicit in the standard itself.

I think I am perhaps arguing against a different thing to you, more on the lines if 'why is your objective standard at all important?'.


In that sense, God's morals are subjective in whether or not you ought to accept them over other systems, such as utilitarianism, egoism, etc.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 6:33:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 4:58:04 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 4:40:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/28/2014 4:25:50 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 4:17:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/28/2014 3:14:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 2:44:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is God the only explanation for objective morality? I have seen several people in this forum suggest that this is the case, and I'm interested in seeing a discussion on this topic unfold.

Anything non-human that decrees something moral could be said to be objective, so aliens for example, or some A.I. Since the only requirement is to decree right and wrong independantly of human opinion/bias.


What an absurd statement. If aliens say that 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it true?

'True' assumes there is a way something should be. While 2 + 2 = 4, the same is not cognitive for morality until you apply a notion of the way things *ought* to be (which is meaningless absent a conditional).



"According to aliens" does not establish objective moral truths anymore than "according to humans".

And how does "according to all of reality" establish it any differently? They all have true and false statements associated with them. If we have an action, X, it could be judged moral/immoral according to humans, aliens or 'all of reality/God', how is it the case that any are 'right' when they are standardised according to themselves.

Because truth is synonymous with reality. If something is true within the context of reality, it is just "true". On the other hand, if something is only true according to an alien, then it's not really "true" in the sense that applies to all of reality, which is what objectivity is all about.

The statement 'I like ice cream' is not 'false' if 'all of reality' doesn't like ice cream for example, as they are both subjective statements, they are just different perspectives with different truth conditions. Hence one party (aliens) judging something to be moral/immoral is no more or less correct than another party judging it to be the opposite.

You clearly only have a very superficial understanding of what objective means.

I don't think that's the issue here.

As always, please keep the discourse civil and on-topic.

... Which raises the bigger question, if we assume God exists and he has set a moral code, then why should we care about it? Since that code is just God's opinion, and does not necessarily reflect human values. God could just decree suffering good and watch us tear ourselves apart, despite it being against our values.


Since God would be synonymous with reality, his moral code, although subjective, would also be objective.

You contradicted yourself in the same sentence? Lol.

When applied to the universe as a whole, subjectivity coincides with objectivity. Although subjectivity usually implies non-objectivity, there's nothing in principle which says that "true for a given context" cannot be "objective". Subjective simply means "true for me", and where "me" is reality, subjective and objective are the same.


That is, according to God = according to reality. Human values which are not in line with the will of God are objectively "immoral".

That's not an argument, that's just a statement of 'all of reality has a moral code' which is subjective to 'all of reality', that does not get to an 'ought', which is the point of morality, at best you would just a statement that you can in accordance with or not with 'all of reality', it doesn't state why we SHOULD act in accordance.

"Subjective to all of reality" is indistinguishable from objective.

No, it's really not. Got an argument for this? You seem to be applying a fallacy of sweeping generalization here.


In this usage, subjective means "according to X". Where X is reality, "according to X" is no different from real or "what is objectively the case".

By definition, a moral standard describes how you should act.

And it seems in your case, your 'objective' moral values describes how you should/ought to act if you value 'all of reality'.

It's equally nonobjective to reject reality's moral standard, for it is objectively "moral" in the same sense that the moon exists. Whether you value reality's moral standard or not is irrelevant to whether or not you should in the objective sense.


Ergo, it all falls back to a value application (which is necessarily subjective). It at best just gives another perspective to judge actions (like any of the innumerable moral philosophies available).

Thus, the morality of acting in accordance with reality's moral standard is implicit in the standard itself.

I think I am perhaps arguing against a different thing to you, more on the lines if 'why is your objective standard at all important?'.

Because it's true for everyone in the same sense that the moon exists for everyone, whether or not they realize it.



In that sense, God's morals are subjective in whether or not you ought to accept them over other systems, such as utilitarianism, egoism, etc.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 8:13:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 3:14:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 2:44:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is God the only explanation for objective morality? I have seen several people in this forum suggest that this is the case, and I'm interested in seeing a discussion on this topic unfold.

Anything non-human that decrees something moral could be said to be objective, so aliens for example, or some A.I. Since the only requirement is to decree right and wrong independantly of human opinion/bias.

That doesn't meet the criteria of objectivity. It would have to be independent of sentient agents in general.


As always, please keep the discourse civil and on-topic.

... Which raises the bigger question, if we assume God exists and he has set a moral code, then why should we care about it? Since that code is just God's opinion, and does not necessarily reflect human values. God could just decree suffering good and watch us tear ourselves apart, despite it being against our values.

In that sense, God's morals are subjective in whether or not you ought to accept them over other systems, such as utilitarianism, egoism, etc.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 9:13:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 2:44:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is God the only explanation for objective morality? I have seen several people in this forum suggest that this is the case, and I'm interested in seeing a discussion on this topic unfold.

There is no such thing as objective morality for the same reason there is no such thing as a married bachelor. It is a logically contradictory phrase.

Morality is a mental construct. One can only morally judge an action against a moral standard. A standard is something that is necessarily determined. It is prescriptive not descriptive, and therefore necessarily a product of the mind.

Some people define "objective" along the lines of "being true regardless of what people think". I don't like that definition because it suggests that aliens or otherwise intelligent life could be a basis for an objective truth, which is clearly absurd. The proper definition is therefore "a truth value that is independent of the mind".

So when you use the phrase "objective morality" you are literally talking about a mental construct independent of the mind.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 1:08:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 2:44:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is God the only explanation for objective morality? I have seen several people in this forum suggest that this is the case, and I'm interested in seeing a discussion on this topic unfold.

As always, please keep the discourse civil and on-topic.

Trying to stir up a hornets nest? lol.

I would put forth a two fold argument. The first being the proposition of objective morality with God. The attributes of God are perfection. Additionally, all life exists because of Him. Morality is not a mental construct of God, but is merely that which is in line with his perfect divine will. What we refer to as morality is our adherence to the truth because if God is perfect then God is truth.

The second argument is against anything else as a basis for objective morality. If there is no God there is no basis to define right and wrong, good and evil. You could look at Utilitarianism as a sound objectively moral framework. Likewise you could look at Natural Law as a source of objectivity for a moral framework. The problem is that if there is no God we are a random happenstance as a result of an unequaled quantum fluctuation billions of years ago. We are a random happenstance. If we are for all intents and purposes an accident of nature then every moral system is based on a subjective opinion as to what the purpose of our species (and even all life) is.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 3:54:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 1:08:09 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/28/2014 2:44:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is God the only explanation for objective morality? I have seen several people in this forum suggest that this is the case, and I'm interested in seeing a discussion on this topic unfold.

As always, please keep the discourse civil and on-topic.

Trying to stir up a hornets nest? lol.

*gasp* Me? Never!
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...