Total Posts:96|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If God Exists, Why Ought I Obey His Morals?

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Before you answer, see is/ought distinction if you are unfamiliar with it:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 7:04:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:
Before you answer, see is/ought distinction if you are unfamiliar with it:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 7:39:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.

You seem to be a little confused, here.

It can logically be argued that to exist is 'better than' to not exist, because non-existence would be qualitatively moot. Therefor, existence itself expresses an objective moral imperative (as evidenced by your own moral injunction against murder). And by extension, then, any action that results in the maintenance and enhancement of that which already exists should be considered "morally superior" to those actions which do not, or which seek the destruction of same. And it appears that you would agree with this, even though you may not be fully aware that you agree with it.

So the argument against objective morality has already been lost.

As to the theist's claim that objective morality is 'divine', or is "God's morality", that just follows logically from their belief that God is the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. (And this is a basic contemporary definition of "God", after all.) So that even if you are not a theist, you should certainly be able to understand why a theists would make such a statement. Really, it's a matter of semantics more than anything else: that is the use of the term "God" as the source, sustenance and purpose of existence.

If, however, you want to object to some specific religious depiction of God, accompanied by a religious dogma espousing some ancient and biased ideology and/or code of behavior, then I agree with you that there is no logical reason for you to follow such a religious ideology or dogma. Nor would I be inclined to do so, myself.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 8:21:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:
Before you answer, see is/ought distinction if you are unfamiliar with it:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.

God's people are deceived by good and evil ( morals ) while us saints, prophets and chosen believers listen to the voice of the Lord and obey all His commandments.

Deuteronomy 28
15: "But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: "the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
21: The Lord will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.
22: The Lord will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until your perish.
23: And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.
24: The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down upon you until you are destroyed.

If you listen to My Voice, you will learn why I planted the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in man's garden to confuse his mind while I'm using My prophets, saints and chosen believers to teach them about the Tree of Life.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 8:34:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:
Before you answer, see is/ought distinction if you are unfamiliar with it:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.

Your suppose an objective moral standard about murder which is kind of ironic given the rest of your post haha
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 8:40:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 6:56:00 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity featured in the Bible is devoid of any moral code!: :

Our Creator is the author of good, evil, birth, death, anger, happiness, disease, decay, accidents, and everything else that man experiences both visible and invisible.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 8:51:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 8:34:20 AM, stubs wrote:
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:
Before you answer, see is/ought distinction if you are unfamiliar with it:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.

Your suppose an objective moral standard about murder which is kind of ironic given the rest of your post haha

No I don't.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 8:55:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:
Before you answer, see is/ought distinction if you are unfamiliar with it:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.

Because they are the best ones for the whole of creation to observe, so why settle for second best?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 8:58:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 7:39:52 AM, PureX wrote:
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.

You seem to be a little confused, here.

It can logically be argued that to exist is 'better than' to not exist, because non-existence would be qualitatively moot.

Demonstrating that non-existance is "quantitatively moot" doesn't demonstrate that existance is not "qualitatively moot". So you have made no progress in the question by that statement.

Therefor, existence itself expresses an objective moral imperative (as evidenced by your own moral injunction against murder).

No. It doesn't logically follow. Try formulating a syllogism with those premises and it'll be come quickly aparent how incoherent that arguement is.

And by extension, then, any action that results in the maintenance and enhancement of that which already exists should be considered "morally superior" to those actions which do not, or which seek the destruction of same. And it appears that you would agree with this, even though you may not be fully aware that you agree with it.

No I don't. And this portion all presupposes the validity and soundness of your earlier portion, so please, construct a syllogism.

So the argument against objective morality has already been lost.

This reply is also rather off-topic to my OP, albeit I am still interested in continuing to respond.

As to the theist's claim that objective morality is 'divine', or is "God's morality", that just follows logically from their belief that God is the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. (And this is a basic contemporary definition of "God", after all.) So that even if you are not a theist, you should certainly be able to understand why a theists would make such a statement. Really, it's a matter of semantics more than anything else: that is the use of the term "God" as the source, sustenance and purpose of existence.

You are not getting at *why* one *ought* to act in accordance with God's moral standard. This is all a red herring. I can plainly see *why* theists make those claims, but it doesn't address the question at hand.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 8:59:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 8:55:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:
Before you answer, see is/ought distinction if you are unfamiliar with it:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.

Because they are the best ones for the whole of creation to observe, so why settle for second best?

Define "best".
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 9:07:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 7:39:52 AM, PureX wrote:
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.

You seem to be a little confused, here.

It can logically be argued that to exist is 'better than' to not exist, because non-existence would be qualitatively moot. Therefor, existence itself expresses an objective moral imperative (as evidenced by your own moral injunction against murder). And by extension, then, any action that results in the maintenance and enhancement of that which already exists should be considered "morally superior" to those actions which do not, or which seek the destruction of same. And it appears that you would agree with this, even though you may not be fully aware that you agree with it.

So the argument against objective morality has already been lost.

But in imo you are only presenting a case against suicide, not murder. Murdering someone can effectively mean the preservation of the own self, and therefore by your logic murder should be considered moraly superior to not-murder, since in this case it means (quoting you) "maintenance of that which already exists".

As to the theist's claim that objective morality is 'divine', or is "God's morality", that just follows logically from their belief that God is the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. (And this is a basic contemporary definition of "God", after all.) So that even if you are not a theist, you should certainly be able to understand why a theists would make such a statement. Really, it's a matter of semantics more than anything else: that is the use of the term "God" as the source, sustenance and purpose of existence.

But even if this were the case, how do you and reconcile the idea of morality being created according to God's own personal tastes, with the idea of morality being objective?

If, however, you want to object to some specific religious depiction of God, accompanied by a religious dogma espousing some ancient and biased ideology and/or code of behavior, then I agree with you that there is no logical reason for you to follow such a religious ideology or dogma. Nor would I be inclined to do so, myself.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 9:07:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What we ought to do is determined by what our purpose is; if we attempt to ascribe a non-teleological basis for morality then we fall foul of the is-ought problem.

If man is created with a purpose, then we ought to act in such a way that we fulfil our purpose. Just like a clock, given that we know that a clock's purpose is to tell the time, we can rationally suppose that a clock ought to tell the time. If one does not know this then they don't really know what a clock is.

So if God exists, he would have created us with, presumably, a purpose. The God instigated morality would be created in such a way as to help us achieve our purpose.
Therefore, by following God's morality, we are acting morally because we ought to fulfil our purpose, and we do this by following God's morality.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 9:09:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 6:56:00 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity featured in the Bible is devoid of any moral code!

Only those too blind to see what his moral code is could possibly say that.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 9:15:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:
Before you answer, see is/ought distinction if you are unfamiliar with it:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.

I think the problem is not that you ought, but that you simply can't. It is impossible to be moraly coherent if you take the Bible and/or other holy books by guides, as they too frequently contain contradictions about what is morally right/wrong, and in the best of cases, they are annoyingly ambiguous.

But assuming that you find a religion that does not contradict itself on morality, I believe you could think about following the "objective" moral standard if not following it is a self-destructive behavior. For example, if you assume Hell is real, then there's a good reason to not contradict God's morality unless you don't care about the preservation of your own welfare.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 9:21:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 9:08:16 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
You're talking about moral motivation right?

http://plato.stanford.edu...

It's the the right kind of ballpark, yes.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 9:24:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 9:07:41 AM, Philocat wrote:
What we ought to do is determined by what our purpose is; if we attempt to ascribe a non-teleological basis for morality then we fall foul of the is-ought problem.

If man is created with a purpose, then we ought to act in such a way that we fulfil our purpose. Just like a clock, given that we know that a clock's purpose is to tell the time, we can rationally suppose that a clock ought to tell the time. If one does not know this then they don't really know what a clock is.

So your argument is something like:

1. We ought to do what has been determined by our purpose
2. What has been determined by our purpose is X moral code
C. Therefore we ought to so X moral code

To which under theism, the moral code is obviously theological. However this begs the question of the correctness of P1. You have only stated by fiat that we ought to ought to act according to our purpose, which is what the whole OP is about. Assuming mankind has some sort of purpose, why ought *I* act in accordance with it.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 9:28:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 9:15:26 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:
Before you answer, see is/ought distinction if you are unfamiliar with it:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.

I think the problem is not that you ought, but that you simply can't. It is impossible to be moraly coherent if you take the Bible and/or other holy books by guides, as they too frequently contain contradictions about what is morally right/wrong, and in the best of cases, they are annoyingly ambiguous.

But assuming that you find a religion that does not contradict itself on morality, I believe you could think about following the "objective" moral standard if not following it is a self-destructive behavior. For example, if you assume Hell is real, then there's a good reason to not contradict God's morality unless you don't care about the preservation of your own welfare.

This is the moral motivation side of things which PCP is talking about. Yes, I quite agree with this, but it's clearly not what is posited by the theist who asserts objective oughts, since this is a necessarily subjective conditional. Whether I care about welfare preservation is inherently subjective, and really doesn't impress me anymore than everyday preservation of welfare, such as not wanting to be shot by police, or not wanting to starve to death.

So while it is true that *I* would like to preserve my welfare (being an average human with average desires), it doesn't follow that every thing will.
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 9:33:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:
Before you answer, see is/ought distinction if you are unfamiliar with it:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.

The reason why you ought to obey his morals. The Bible doesn't say that your SOUL will burn in hell, it just says that about your body. You should care because all it will cost you is your dopamine and if not, your individuality.
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 9:52:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 9:07:15 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/23/2015 7:39:52 AM, PureX wrote:
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.

You seem to be a little confused, here.

It can logically be argued that to exist is 'better than' to not exist, because non-existence would be qualitatively moot. Therefor, existence itself expresses an objective moral imperative (as evidenced by your own moral injunction against murder). And by extension, then, any action that results in the maintenance and enhancement of that which already exists should be considered "morally superior" to those actions which do not, or which seek the destruction of same. And it appears that you would agree with this, even though you may not be fully aware that you agree with it.

So the argument against objective morality has already been lost.

But in imo you are only presenting a case against suicide, not murder. Murdering someone can effectively mean the preservation of the own self, and therefore by your logic murder should be considered moraly superior to not-murder, since in this case it means (quoting you) "maintenance of that which already exists".

Such a murder would be the preservation of myself at the expense of another. Existentially, that's still a 'net loss'. And thus would be considered existentially "immoral".

As to the theist's claim that objective morality is 'divine', or is "God's morality", that just follows logically from their belief that God is the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. (And this is a basic contemporary definition of "God", after all.) So that even if you are not a theist, you should certainly be able to understand why a theists would make such a statement. Really, it's a matter of semantics more than anything else: that is the use of the term "God" as the source, sustenance and purpose of existence.

But even if this were the case, how do you and reconcile the idea of morality being created according to God's own personal tastes, with the idea of morality being objective?

I am not defining God in such a way that "God's personal tastes" would enter into it. I must assume that the creator, sustainer, and reason for all that exists (what I call God), has created and sustains that which (God) intends to exist. Nothing more, and nothing less. Therefor, as I am a part of that existence, myself, it is in my own interest to respect, protect, and maintain that existence to the degree that I am able. It would be illogical for me to take away from others that which I seek to maintain for myself. As we are all aspects of the same existential event.
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 10:09:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 8:58:18 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/23/2015 7:39:52 AM, PureX wrote:
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.

You seem to be a little confused, here.

It can logically be argued that to exist is 'better than' to not exist, because non-existence would be qualitatively moot.

Demonstrating that non-existance is "quantitatively moot" doesn't demonstrate that existance is not "qualitatively moot". So you have made no progress in the question by that statement.

But the issue at hand is a question of "morality", which is an issue of quality. And as such cannot be applied to non-existence. But that can be applied to existence, and is in fact evidenced by existence, itself (as that which exists seeks to maintain it's existence).

Therefor, existence itself expresses an objective moral imperative (as evidenced by your own moral injunction against murder).

No. It doesn't logically follow. Try formulating a syllogism with those premises and it'll be come quickly aparent how incoherent that arguement is.

Why didn't you just do that, yourself?

And by extension, then, any action that results in the maintenance and enhancement of that which already exists should be considered "morally superior" to those actions which do not, or which seek the destruction of same. And it appears that you would agree with this, even though you may not be fully aware that you agree with it.

No I don't. And this portion all presupposes the validity and soundness of your earlier portion, so please, construct a syllogism.

Again, why didn't you already do this?

So the argument against objective morality has already been lost.

This reply is also rather off-topic to my OP, albeit I am still interested in continuing to respond.

That's fine. But as we go along, keep in mind that we humans have an innate proclivity for ego-centric auto-defence. Just sayin'.

As to the theist's claim that objective morality is 'divine', or is "God's morality", that just follows logically from their belief that God is the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. (And this is a basic contemporary definition of "God", after all.) So that even if you are not a theist, you should certainly be able to understand why a theists would make such a statement. Really, it's a matter of semantics more than anything else: that is the use of the term "God" as the source, sustenance and purpose of existence.

You are not getting at *why* one *ought* to act in accordance with God's moral standard. This is all a red herring. I can plainly see *why* theists make those claims, but it doesn't address the question at hand.

I did, but you missed it because you wrongly (I believe) rejected the first premise.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 10:36:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 9:24:42 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/23/2015 9:07:41 AM, Philocat wrote:
What we ought to do is determined by what our purpose is; if we attempt to ascribe a non-teleological basis for morality then we fall foul of the is-ought problem.

If man is created with a purpose, then we ought to act in such a way that we fulfil our purpose. Just like a clock, given that we know that a clock's purpose is to tell the time, we can rationally suppose that a clock ought to tell the time. If one does not know this then they don't really know what a clock is.

So your argument is something like:

1. We ought to do what has been determined by our purpose
2. What has been determined by our purpose is X moral code
C. Therefore we ought to so X moral code

To which under theism, the moral code is obviously theological. However this begs the question of the correctness of P1. You have only stated by fiat that we ought to ought to act according to our purpose, which is what the whole OP is about. Assuming mankind has some sort of purpose, why ought *I* act in accordance with it.

So you're asking why we ought to follow our purpose?

If so, then the answer is quite apparent. If X has a purpose, then X *ought* to fulfil that purpose.

For example, given that a fireman's purpose is to put out fires, we can conclude that a fireman *ought* to put out fires.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 10:47:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
For my part, I agree with Kant - God ensures that happiness and virtue ultimately correspond. Mrality only makes rational sense if acting morally it ultimately in our own self interest. I don't mean punishment and reward - I mean that, practically speaking, we have to believe that morality makes sense, that it's a "deep" and fundamental part of reality, and that the context we live in is that of a moral context, in order to remain committed to be moral. In the short term, we may have to sacrifice our own short term interests, but in the long term they ultimately coincide. In other words, reason and morality (practical reason) do not come apart on theism.

Contrast with this view of the world (inb4 "that's not the only alternative to theism! strawman!"):

" Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built"

-- Bertrand Russell

On this view, sometimes morality and reason will come apart. Fulfilling moral obligations in this sort of world would on occasion result in a net loss for the moral agent. In a lot of cases this would be true. Telling an inconvenient truth or repaying a debt or keeping an inconvenient promise, or performing so act that will likely result in your painful death. You have to sacrifice many such goods in that world to do the moral thing. So the choice is: agree that morality and rationality will sometimes demand different thing and say "hey I should do the moral, irrational thing anyways" or "hey I should do the irrational thing and ignore morality".
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 10:57:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The first question would be which set of morals? There's the OT set where it's an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, where wearing mixed fabrics or working on holy days will get you killed, where rebellious children are taken to the city gates and stoned to death, etc. Then there's the NT teachings of Jesus where are admonished to love our neighbors as ourselves, not to judge others, not to point out the mote in our neighbor's eye until we remove the plank in our own, etc.

From a purely personal perspective, I strongly feel that I ought to follow that NT set. It is mindful of the value of life, of the necessity for personal responsibility, and respectful of the integrity of others. It seeks to make life better for everyone, not just a favored few. Let Christians follow and obey their Christ's teachings and this world will get a lot better.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 11:53:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 10:09:07 AM, PureX wrote:
At 3/23/2015 8:58:18 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/23/2015 7:39:52 AM, PureX wrote:
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:

Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is. I am generally going to be against murder regardless if it's moral nature, and regardless of whether or not an objective moral standard agrees or disagrees with it. Thus God's moral code really would hardly matter to me both prescriptively and pragmatically.

You seem to be a little confused, here.

It can logically be argued that to exist is 'better than' to not exist, because non-existence would be qualitatively moot.

Demonstrating that non-existance is "quantitatively moot" doesn't demonstrate that existance is not "qualitatively moot". So you have made no progress in the question by that statement.

But the issue at hand is a question of "morality", which is an issue of quality. And as such cannot be applied to non-existence. But that can be applied to existence, and is in fact evidenced by existence, itself (as that which exists seeks to maintain it's existence).

Can it? This is question begging. I can freely concede that non-existance cannot have any inherent quality (whatever the heck that is) applied, but this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. My position is that existance and non-existance are neither inherently "preferable", and you have light years to get any "ought" from this.

Therefor, existence itself expresses an objective moral imperative (as evidenced by your own moral injunction against murder).

No. It doesn't logically follow. Try formulating a syllogism with those premises and it'll be come quickly aparent how incoherent that arguement is.

Why didn't you just do that, yourself?

1. Because it might strawman your position
2. Because I already did it myself in paper and I came up with a non sequitur. Thus if you do it yourself I suspect you will find what I am trying to show you for yourself.
3. It's your burden to provide valid reasoning. You haven't done that so far (the main issue, which you will find if you try to formulate your argument is attacking non existance doesn't make existsnce any more morally preferable).

And by extension, then, any action that results in the maintenance and enhancement of that which already exists should be considered "morally superior" to those actions which do not, or which seek the destruction of same. And it appears that you would agree with this, even though you may not be fully aware that you agree with it.

No I don't. And this portion all presupposes the validity and soundness of your earlier portion, so please, construct a syllogism.

Again, why didn't you already do this?

So the argument against objective morality has already been lost.

This reply is also rather off-topic to my OP, albeit I am still interested in continuing to respond.

That's fine. But as we go along, keep in mind that we humans have an innate proclivity for ego-centric auto-defence. Just sayin'.

I have a proclivity to disregard bare assertions, like this one. But it's no secret I argue for egoistic reasons. Anyway....

As to the theist's claim that objective morality is 'divine', or is "God's morality", that just follows logically from their belief that God is the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. (And this is a basic contemporary definition of "God", after all.) So that even if you are not a theist, you should certainly be able to understand why a theists would make such a statement. Really, it's a matter of semantics more than anything else: that is the use of the term "God" as the source, sustenance and purpose of existence.

You are not getting at *why* one *ought* to act in accordance with God's moral standard. This is all a red herring. I can plainly see *why* theists make those claims, but it doesn't address the question at hand.

I did, but you missed it because you wrongly (I believe) rejected the first premise.

I am waiting for you to affirm said premise in a manner which is not question begging or a non-sequitur.... To date I have not seen anyone do this in a manner which is consistent with an "objective ought", nor do I think it is possible anymore due to severe issues of non-cognitivism.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 12:01:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 10:47:26 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
For my part, I agree with Kant - God ensures that happiness and virtue ultimately correspond. Mrality only makes rational sense if acting morally it ultimately in our own self interest. I don't mean punishment and reward - I mean that, practically speaking, we have to believe that morality makes sense, that it's a "deep" and fundamental part of reality, and that the context we live in is that of a moral context, in order to remain committed to be moral. In the short term, we may have to sacrifice our own short term interests, but in the long term they ultimately coincide. In other words, reason and morality (practical reason) do not come apart on theism.

Hmm, this seems to be a blend of contractarianism and egoism. Where egoism grounds the metaethics, and contractarianism is the manifest application. I mean it doesn't address the OP in demanding an "ought", so while it grants pragmatics, it doesn't make any fundemental truth statement. I am not sure we disagree much here...

Perhaps it is true we generally need to operate under the allusion that morality makes sense in some deep or fundemental level, regardless of whether or not it is the case. I freely admit that a world full of nihilists such as myself may not be sustainable, and ultimately against our long term self-interest, but it really doesn't answer the question of divine realism.

Contrast with this view of the world (inb4 "that's not the only alternative to theism! strawman!"):

" Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built"

-- Bertrand Russell

On this view, sometimes morality and reason will come apart. Fulfilling moral obligations in this sort of world would on occasion result in a net loss for the moral agent. In a lot of cases this would be true. Telling an inconvenient truth or repaying a debt or keeping an inconvenient promise, or performing so act that will likely result in your painful death. You have to sacrifice many such goods in that world to do the moral thing. So the choice is: agree that morality and rationality will sometimes demand different thing and say "hey I should do the moral, irrational thing anyways" or "hey I should do the irrational thing and ignore morality".

I dint think we disagree on anything here except our use of terminology - where I would avoid committing to moral terminology.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 12:21:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 10:36:44 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 3/23/2015 9:24:42 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/23/2015 9:07:41 AM, Philocat wrote:
What we ought to do is determined by what our purpose is; if we attempt to ascribe a non-teleological basis for morality then we fall foul of the is-ought problem.

If man is created with a purpose, then we ought to act in such a way that we fulfil our purpose. Just like a clock, given that we know that a clock's purpose is to tell the time, we can rationally suppose that a clock ought to tell the time. If one does not know this then they don't really know what a clock is.

So your argument is something like:

1. We ought to do what has been determined by our purpose
2. What has been determined by our purpose is X moral code
C. Therefore we ought to so X moral code

To which under theism, the moral code is obviously theological. However this begs the question of the correctness of P1. You have only stated by fiat that we ought to ought to act according to our purpose, which is what the whole OP is about. Assuming mankind has some sort of purpose, why ought *I* act in accordance with it.

So you're asking why we ought to follow our purpose?

If so, then the answer is quite apparent. If X has a purpose, then X *ought* to fulfil that purpose.

You are just restating your premise, that's question begging.

"Why ought we follow our purpose?"
"If you have a purpose, then you ought to fulfil that purpose"

It says virtually nothing.

For example, given that a fireman's purpose is to put out fires, we can conclude that a fireman *ought* to put out fires.

No.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 12:25:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 6:23:24 AM, Envisage wrote:
Theists will often posit God as the objective moral standard, and even assuming a God, even a religious God exists, I want to know why I should give a sh*t what his moral code is.

Indeed. This comes up from time to time in definitions of atheism. Theists (let's be honest and say Christians really, since they coined the term), typically consider atheism the rejection of the metaphysical idea of a universal creator -- and that's what they argue over.

But that is the least important of all the theist precepts to actually challenge.

Morally, the most important precept to challenge is the invocation of deity: either being so physically dependent on deity that you need it to get through your day; so metaphysically anxious that you have to propitiate deity in order assuage your fear of death; or so purposeless in your own existence that you need to hang off every canonical instruction just to give your life meaning.

It's these things -- invocation, propitiation and obedience -- that make some supernatural agency a deity, and like Envisage, my question is why should anyone need that?

We don't need a deity for the physical world. We have physical controls more reliable than any religion has ever delivered, and it's called science.

We have no idea about metaphysics, except to observe that metaphysical predictions get routinely debunked by physical observations. So let's call metaphysical anxiety what it is: fear of death, and toughen up about that. The Neanderthals all coped with dying; humans can too.

And finally, using deity was a Bronze age way to establish rule of law. It worked when people were ignorant and easily impressed, when there were no CCTV cameras, and when it'd take you weeks of walking to cross from one side of a country to another, and virtually no crimes would be investigated.

There is nothing in religious morality that's especially insightful, nor is it sufficiently insightful to deal with strategic issues like environment, economic growth, multiculturalism, foreign policy, intergenerational debt -- moral decisions that carry for generations.

As an atheist I am utterly agnostic about the notion of a universal creator. I'm not even sure what that means, but I see no reason to have an opinion on something nobody can constructively define and which is unlikely to inform a single life-decision anyway.

However I am darn-tootin sure I don't want religion dictating my morality. Not when the only robust way we have of understanding what 'good' means is to examine our impacts and question ourselves.
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 12:32:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 11:53:28 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:09:07 AM, PureX wrote:

But the issue at hand is a question of "morality", which is an issue of quality. And as such cannot be applied to non-existence. But that can be applied to existence, and is in fact evidenced by existence, itself (as that which exists seeks to maintain it's existence).

Can it? This is question begging. I can freely concede that non-existance cannot have any inherent quality (whatever the heck that is) applied, but this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. My position is that existance and non-existance are neither inherently "preferable", and you have light years to get any "ought" from this.

And yet here you are, still struggling to continue existing. Your OWN continued existence is a testament to the innate value of existing. How can you not recognize that?

3. It's your burden to provide valid reasoning. You haven't done that so far (the main issue, which you will find if you try to formulate your argument is attacking non existance doesn't make existsnce any more morally preferable).

I don't need to "attack non-existence" as your own struggle to continue existing already proves my point. You value your own participation in the phenomenon of existence. Why are you even trying to argue against this? Unless, perhaps, you've succumbed that all too common human characteristic of ego-centric auto-defense.

I have a proclivity to disregard bare assertions, like this one. But it's no secret I argue for egoistic reasons. Anyway".

I also tend to defy bare assertions, but sometimes they are simply self-evident. Or, rather, they would be if we were not being blinded by our own auto-defense mechanisms.

I am waiting for you to affirm said premise in a manner which is not question begging or a non-sequitur.... To date I have not seen anyone do this in a manner which is consistent with an "objective ought", nor do I think it is possible anymore due to severe issues of non-cognitivism.

One must first open their eyes if they wish to "see". And even then, one must open their mind if they wish to understand what they are seeing.

I think you may be tripping yourself up on the idea that we "ought" to respect, support, promote, etc., existence because we all agree that existing is "good". I'm not proposing any "ought to's", or "metaphysical goodness's". I'm simply pointing out that we do, in fact, value existing (knowingly or not) in that like nearly everything else that exists, we tend to want to keep existing. And, given that existence is one singular holistic event phenomenon, of which we are only a very small part, it's reasonable to assume that our desire to continue existing is a reflection of that same desire that we see evident all around us: that they are all the manifestations and reflections of one and the same desire.

We can still choose to defy that desire. And it's a matter of subjective ethics whether or not we see that defiance as a "bad" thing to do. But I do believe it's an irrational thing to do. Because existence wants to exist. And so do we. And to act contrary to the one is to act contrary to the other.