Do you need a God for objective moral values to exist?

Posted by: Mikal

If a God does not exist, can we explain objective moral values without him?

Vote
993 Total Votes
1

No

789 votes
18 comments
2

Yes

204 votes
10 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
bladerunner060 says2013-09-07T01:01:21.6108606-05:00
Those voting for the necessity of God for objective moral values should remember that if God created them, they're subjective to God. So either he's appealing to a truly objective concept, in which case he's unnecessary, or it's no different than following any other individual's morality in terms of objectivity.
Agathon says2013-09-07T01:02:54.2078023-05:00
That's why I contend that God didn't created morals anymore than he created himself.
bladerunner060 says2013-09-07T01:18:56.7597225-05:00
@Agathon: In which case, you don't need a God for objective morals to exist.
Mikal says2013-09-07T01:27:51.0467357-05:00
Answer the Euthyphro Dilemma if you think he created objective moral values
theargument says2013-09-07T04:01:42.5608310-05:00
If a person is doing good things just because of fear of hell then I don't think that such person is actualy good. I see people who don't believe in god and because of that don't have to be afraid of hell, but still they aren't bad people, not any worse than believers.
theargument says2013-09-07T04:01:50.2244323-05:00
If a person is doing good things just because of fear of hell then I don't think that such person is actualy good. I see people who don't believe in god and because of that don't have to be afraid of hell, but still they aren't bad people, not any worse than believers.
PiningForASilverLining says2013-09-07T10:28:27.8317690-05:00
We certainly don't follow the same morals and laws of ancient times, Old Testament, Code of Hammurabi and whatnot. Morals, values, laws, change with the times and the contexts
Juan_Pablo says2013-09-07T17:30:00.9511247-05:00
Yes. Objective moral values are values that can be applied to everything. By this definition they can only be applied by something that has jurisdiction over everything! Otherwise morals ARE NOT objective and are established by concensus.
Agathon says2013-09-07T17:35:45.6203565-05:00
The Euthyphro Dilemma has been answered for thousands of years, the Good is God himself. Anyhow Bladerunner, just because objective morals are uncreated doesn't imply they aren't grounded ontologically in God.
Mikal says2013-09-07T18:20:03.0931418-05:00
You do not understand the context of the dilemma. If you take it as God is the standard of good or creator of objective moral values, then anything he commands will always be good. This could apply to anything we could think of. Genocide, rape, and murder which we already see how genocide can be justified within the bible. Therefore God is a egotistical tryant whom only cares about himself. Therefore moral standards probably exist independent of God, and he is not the measure in which we gauge them. This would deplete the need for God. Either way its a lose lose situation. The main problem lies within moral contingency.
Agathon says2013-09-07T18:35:22.0553291-05:00
I do in fact understand the context of the dilemma. It actually applied to the polytheistic view that was in Socrates' and Euthyphro's culture, not to a monotheistic, Hebrew tradition. It's a false dilemma when applied to theism for this reason, God, by definition, is the greatest conceivable being and since it's greater to be the good rather than to just exemplify it, then it follows that God IS "the Good" thus it's meaningless to assert that God would ever command rape and so forth. For God's commands are reflections of his all good nature.
Agathon says2013-09-07T18:38:43.6736063-05:00
Would you like to debate Euthyphro’s Dilemma?
Mikal says2013-09-07T19:11:29.6679931-05:00
Its "would" vs "could" because you are then stating that objective moral values are determined and will never be shifted. There is nothing to stop God from doing this because then you are attempting to understate his very nature. You would have to use the bible which in itself is flawed horribly. As I mentioned, the dilemma itself would just lead to semantics. If you want to take on a debate about whether we need a God in order to explain how the universe works. I will take that, if not me look in the challenges. Sargon already has one up, and that is what he excels at.
Mikal says2013-09-07T19:11:30.0266413-05:00
Its "would" vs "could" because you are then stating that objective moral values are determined and will never be shifted. There is nothing to stop God from doing this because then you are attempting to understate his very nature. You would have to use the bible which in itself is flawed horribly. As I mentioned, the dilemma itself would just lead to semantics. If you want to take on a debate about whether we need a God in order to explain how the universe works. I will take that, if not me look in the challenges. Sargon already has one up, and that is what he excels at.
Agathon says2013-09-07T19:18:02.7286903-05:00
I do affirm that objective moral values are determined in the sense that, say, justice couldn't ever be not good. But not in the sense that God determines what's good arbitrarily. That's to beg the question with the EU against the theist. How does it understate God's nature when we learn that God is a maximally great being by definition, and that it's more plausibly greater to be all good than not? How does any of this reasoning dependent on biblical interpretation?
Agathon says2013-09-07T19:18:14.2567208-05:00
I'll PM ya about the rest.
Mikal says2013-09-07T19:34:13.5842385-05:00
I hate that phrase lol. God is good by definition. I hear it so much
Mikal says2013-09-07T19:35:48.2399893-05:00
I do see how theist can arrive at that statement though
Agathon says2013-09-07T19:39:45.5295497-05:00
Right, because if we're talking about an evil deity, than we're no longer talking about a maximally great being, since it's greater to be all good rather than evil. And God is a being who's worthy of worship for his axiological perfection, this is what we mean by God. What's there to 'hate' about this? Lol
Agathon says2013-09-07T19:40:49.7251957-05:00
Why would you be talking about God still if you also thought he was all evil? How would we still be talking about God?
Mikal says2013-09-07T19:42:44.9330154-05:00
Because when someone says it, it brings up the Christian God in most regards. To look at that statement. "He is great by definition", but it begs the question what secs definition? In regards to the acts and why he created us, it just seems it goes parallel with the bible more often than not.
Agathon says2013-09-07T20:32:19.6380839-05:00
Secs of Christianity differ over things like how to perform the ritual sacraments, freewill, and so forth, they don't differ on the conception of God as a maximally great being. So this is a red herring. Second, you're bringing up secondary considerations with the bible, whether this maximally great being chose to reveal himself through Christ and the bible or not isn't relevant to the question of whether this being is a sound moral ontology.
bladerunner060 says2013-09-07T21:02:22.0790689-05:00
@Juan_Pablo: That's not what objective means. @Agathon: Either morality is subjective to God, or not subjective to God. If morality is objective to God, God's unnecessary for these objective morals, they are by definition external to him. If they are subjective to God, well, then they're as subjective as any other system.
Mikal says2013-09-07T22:35:37.2665154-05:00
No I mean when you say God would never shift morality. That is only so if you admit the bible, and that is even debatable. He condoned Genocide and murdering young children in certain circumstances. Whether or not those laws and God has the same mindset today is irrelevant. Take Genocide for example. If the bible is true, God commanded it before. Thus it is morally acceptable. If that is true, he shifted it away because we now know genocide is not morally acceptable. There are hundreds of examples where you could play semantics with it. That is even accepting that the God who determines morality is the God of the bible. What if he is allah or some being that we have no concept of. Just because he created the universe, does not make him incapable of changing morality at a whim. That is just a Christian viewpoint in a way, and it is a pre-conceived idea that God is "good" by definition. There is no way to show that if there is a God, he is entirely good or what he does and does not deem morally acceptable. I just think science has helped us understand how we can gauge morality without using a God. There can be objective morality without a divine being whom it is judged by.
Agathon says2013-09-08T01:33:00.7901458-05:00
Bladerunner060, what do you mean by morality being "subjective to God'? If God is a maximally great being, and if it's greater to be the good rather than to just exemplify it, then it follows that that God IS the good. You would have to show that it's greater to not be all good.
Mikal says2013-09-08T01:37:12.5707533-05:00
I think he means that God can determine anything based on his views. It would be subjective in regards to his perception. If you admit that morality is objective to God, it would be objective and not dependent on God himself?
Agathon says2013-09-08T01:37:14.0298157-05:00
Mikal, what do you mean by "God would never shift morality"? God, on the Judeo-Christian scheme IS the moral, he IS the good, the very standard of moral perfection. How does this admit the bible or any one interpretation of it? You're still question begging that God determines rather than IS the moral value. Also you're continuing to bring up irrelevant issues of how such a being would is did reveal himself to humanity. Why not just debate me on this? Science is just descriptive, it can never speak on what's prescriptive, and morality, I'm afraid, is prescriptive in nature.
Agathon says2013-09-08T01:38:08.9193981-05:00
*you're continuing to bring up irrelevant issues of how such a being would *(or)* DID reveal himself to humanity. Why not just debate me on this?
Mikal says2013-09-08T01:40:41.8963091-05:00
I will take on any debate, if you agree to the resolution I put forth. That way I can encompass everything into one debate.
Mikal says2013-09-08T01:40:42.1690183-05:00
I will take on any debate, if you agree to the resolution I put forth. That way I can encompass everything into one debate.
bladerunner060 says2013-09-08T02:04:25.4951955-05:00
@Agathorn: "All good" is nonsensical. You're saying God both is and is not the abstract concept "the good". Also, if he is "the good", how could we possibly determine that? We can define "powerful" without reference to God, which is how we can define he's maximally powerful. Good, on the other hand, could not be so defined, as it would be merely "that which is God". Either God can say that anything he wants is moral, or he cannot. If he cannot, that's because there is a standard external to him that he exemplifies. If he CAN, than morality is meaningless and utterly subjective to him.
bladerunner060 says2013-09-08T02:05:00.0326536-05:00
(Sorry for the typo, that should be "Agathon", not "Agathorn")
Agathon says2013-09-08T02:25:31.0434407-05:00
Bladerunner060, damnit why didn't I think of Agathorn instead!? ;-) How is All good nonsensical? The problem is you're presupposing the good IS an abstract concept from the start! It's no wonder you think I' mean that God is both an abstract concept and not. Your question then arises how could we determine whether God is the good, but I've already said that God's the greatest conceivable being, and since it's greater to be the good rather than just exemplify it as an abstract concept, then God is the good. You would have to show that it's greater not to be the good. So it's utterly a false dilemma that "either God can say that anything he wants is moral, or he cannot." Rather God is the moral, and so his commands to us are reflections of the moral. Please address this point rather than question beg against it?
Agathon says2013-09-08T02:25:38.5628335-05:00
"I will take on any debate, if you agree to the resolution I put forth" lol - "I'll do anything, as long as it's not X, Y Z" Let's just debate simply the Euthyphro Dilemma, isn't it part of your position that the Euthyphro Dilemma is sound?
Mikal says2013-09-08T03:02:35.4324596-05:00
I include it in within the context of a Universe. The dilemma itself is semantics, and I am not a fan of philosophy. I tie the point in with scientific evidence to show there is no need for a God to explain the Universe. An example of which is what you had previously said. Because God is God and is suppose to be a maximally great being, he has to be good and everything that he commands is good regardless of how we perceive it. That is if we accept the fact that we need a God in order to have objectivity within morality, which I do not think we need. I tie all of the points in together. Since I loathe philosophy in most ways, it is a way I can tie it in a little with scientific facts and evidence that I use for the fact that we do not need a God. When you say the questions has been answered. You mean to say that God everything God commands is good. That is an answer for the question sure, but again that is assuming if you accept that God himself is the standard of all good, or possibly whether he has to be the standard.
Mikal says2013-09-08T03:02:35.9359120-05:00
I include it in within the context of a Universe. The dilemma itself is semantics, and I am not a fan of philosophy. I tie the point in with scientific evidence to show there is no need for a God to explain the Universe. An example of which is what you had previously said. Because God is God and is suppose to be a maximally great being, he has to be good and everything that he commands is good regardless of how we perceive it. That is if we accept the fact that we need a God in order to have objectivity within morality, which I do not think we need. I tie all of the points in together. Since I loathe philosophy in most ways, it is a way I can tie it in a little with scientific facts and evidence that I use for the fact that we do not need a God. When you say the questions has been answered. You mean to say that God everything God commands is good. That is an answer for the question sure, but again that is assuming if you accept that God himself is the standard of all good, or possibly whether he has to be the standard.
bladerunner060 says2013-09-08T03:31:48.3176110-05:00
@Agathon: (Agathorn woulda been cool...Just sayin is all...) I'm not "question begging". "The good" IS an abstract concept. It's an adjective. Is God also "the green"? We won't even get into the utterly unsupported assumptions you make regarding "greatest", and your unwarranted "question begging" charge. Further, if God is "the good", then therefore nothing but God would be good, which is clearly absurd...Even if I accepted your presupposition that it's greater to BE the good than to exemplify the concept, you'd be saying that anything which isn't God can't possibly be good...Because then there would be good that WASN'T God, and God wouldn't BE "The Good". Regardless, the point is: If God murdered a kitten, would that make murdering kittens inherently moral? If so, then clearly the morality is not objective, but rather subjective to God's desire. If, instead, he CANNOT murder a kitten, because it's "not his nature", then we could achieve a description of that nature without reference to God at all, and God is unnecessary in order to achieve that. As an atheist, I don't believe God exists. Yet I'm capable of understanding the concepts about him you introduce, and am able to think of them individually without reference to the irrelevant whole...God is not necessary to think of them.
Mikal says2013-09-08T08:06:50.0174227-05:00
@ Blade The wording of the kitten example was well done. I kept trying to put it in a coherent way, but I am on 38 hours with no sleep and could not focus well.
Mikal says2013-09-08T08:06:50.2878777-05:00
@ Blade The wording of the kitten example was well done. I kept trying to put it in a coherent way, but I am on 38 hours with no sleep and could not focus well.
Juan_Pablo says2013-09-08T13:12:42.8888002-05:00
Objective morals do not exist. Clearly the fact that humans participate (and have participated through history) in the killing of other humans indicates as much!
Mikal says2013-09-08T14:20:57.3878065-05:00
@ what that is relevant to the situation. There can be objectivity of morality within a culture or during a time period and what is objective can change.,The question is whether morality can be objective across the board. The answer is still yes.
Mikal says2013-09-08T14:20:57.5168741-05:00
@ what that is relevant to the situation. There can be objectivity of morality within a culture or during a time period and what is objective can change.,The question is whether morality can be objective across the board. The answer is still yes.
Mikal says2013-09-08T14:20:59.5917140-05:00
@ what that is relevant to the situation. There can be objectivity of morality within a culture or during a time period and what is objective can change.,The question is whether morality can be objective across the board. The answer is still yes.
Mikal says2013-09-08T15:59:50.2233612-05:00
I have no idea why this thing double and triple post remarks lol.
Juan_Pablo says2013-09-08T17:07:13.6279187-05:00
The only time a community achieves an universal "understanding" on right and wrong is when laws are established. But even then there are always factions that want to change laws . . . So even here morality fails to be objective. There is no such things as objective morality . . . But there is such a thing as popular morality. Now there I will agree with you.
Agathon says2013-09-08T18:42:57.9235838-05:00
Bladerunner060, why think that the good is an abstract concept alone? Do you think it exists Platonically? How can justice itself be just within the absence of persons? What sense does it make to say that God's the green? Green is descriptive whereas morals are of value and they're prescriptive. There must be a value standard for any objective value. And you're saying the standard is abstracta. At best this leaves morals floating in an unintelligible way. I showed how what you said was begging the question for atheistic moral Platonism. You said, "Either God can say that anything he wants is moral, or he cannot" This begs the question. What about God as the moral standard? How is this incoherent? And what's wrong with thinking God is the greatest conceivable being?
Agathon says2013-09-08T18:50:22.4508004-05:00
I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by "the good" when you say this, "nothing but God would be good, which is clearly absurd." I don't mean 'the good' in the sense that nothing created can't be good, or that a person going through medical school isn't good. Rather I simply mean moral values like benevolence and kindness, etc.
Mikal says2013-09-08T18:51:51.0610724-05:00
Kindness can exist without God though, as well as the ability to determine what is right and wrong. There has to be a way to gauge it, but we do not need a divine being to do so.
Agathon says2013-09-08T18:58:16.0480397-05:00
And what do you mean by murdering a kitten? You can kill a cat, or in the case of God he can choose to cease prolonging its life for whatever reason, but to speak of murdering a kitten is to ascribe a person to that animal. Animals aren't persons. So it's a bad analogy I think from the start. But let's go with it, suppose it IS murder if one kills a cat. Would God then be guilty of murdering it? The answer is no, God is under no obligation to prolong the existence of his creation. Nor would God act capriciously since he acts in accordance with his all good nature. To ask then what if God commits murder, is to ask a meaningless question, it's like saying what if a square was round? Or what if two was five? I don't make no sense! (Agh! ... A thorn!) The theist's position isn't that morals are subjective to God's desire Now how in the world can you achieve a description of God's nature without reference to God? Identity is a necessary relation my friend. Just because you can imagine God's nature as separate from him, doesn't at all mean that's coherent. I can imagine a world where effects precede causes, but that doesn't make it coherent.
Agathon says2013-09-08T19:01:27.5573225-05:00
Anyhow, the theist's position isn't that morals are subjective to God's desire, rather it's that God's nature is such that it's morally perfect, which means God's the standard of moral good.
Agathon says2013-09-08T19:03:33.9032134-05:00
Mikal, the question is how can kindness as kindness itself "just exist" within the absence of any persons? What you're bringing up in that second part is how we come to know what's morally correct and so forth, bu that's irrelevant to the question of what their ontological foundation is.
Mikal says2013-09-08T19:09:48.6233582-05:00
I don't think there is or can be a foundation for kindness unless person do exist. Other wise it is invoking a top-level ontology which is essentially the same thing you are hinting at. Kindness or morality is not woven in nature, but derived from perspectives. It is true it can be objective, but it does not bear universal objectivity or truth.
Agathon says2013-09-08T19:22:18.1397717-05:00
I don't see how this isn't contradictory, "Kindness or morality is not woven in nature, but derived from perspectives. It is true it can be objective, but it does not bear universal objectivity or truth." How can something both be objective and not?
Agathon says2013-09-08T19:41:21.9381674-05:00
Http://www.Debate.Org/debates/Euthyphros-Dilemma/1/
Mikal says2013-09-08T20:12:26.5521181-05:00
Objectivity through a culture. We think murder is wrong. In America it is an objective value and moral commandment in some ways. Same with rape, but in other cultures it is considered acceptable. While it is objective to us, it may not be objective to to others. You can gauge morality through culture in that regard. Whatever is permissible in that culture is an objective truth. That in itself is an objective law. Also through the well being of others. That is one example that has been put out to determine objectivity without God. Anything that negatively and directly effects someone can be immoral
Agathon says2013-09-08T20:35:45.5000030-05:00
Redefining morality in terms of well being still begs the question of why think the well being of creatures is any better than the flourishing of cactus? Identity is a necessary relation, and what you're doing there is redefining morals be something other than morals... So we're not talking about the same thing here, why think it's objectively good for humans to flourish? But leave that aside, you're a cultural relativist, so you can't argue for moral objectivity. By definition something is objectif just if it stands independent of human opinion and culture. So you can't use the Eu dilemma for your position. Regardless, why think then that just morals are subjective? Why not logic too? Aren't both supposed to be transcendent norms of ought-ness?
Mikal says2013-09-08T20:45:48.8157290-05:00
I would call myself more of a moral relativist. By flourish I mean the fact, that we are not wiping each other out. We are working together to keep each other alive, and that ties into Darwinism. Anything that helps us progress can be an objective truth within nature. You would ask, then why not kill off the mentally ill or handi capped? We would consider that immoral. They serve no purpose and we gain no benefit. So what stops us from doing that, and why do we think it is wrong? These are the side effects of culture at work. While there are objective truths within nature, culture can help refine those morals into what is best for that specific time and situation. The same is true for anything, not just humans. Plants and animals alike. It is engraved in nature.
Magic8000 says2013-09-08T21:06:54.4802482-05:00
Agathan Why is God’s nature good? Is it because it's just his nature or is it because his natures appeals to a higher standard?
Agathon says2013-09-08T21:07:22.7046110-05:00
I agree that anything that helps us progress can be an 'known' though science or whatever as objective truth within nature. That's not at all surprising, but that's not the question though, right? The question is why think that the flourishing of humanity is objectively good? This is a higher order question, science doesn't have the resources to answer it. Your beloved philosophy does though ;-) (and btw, for as much as you hate and loathe philosophy, it's what you're engaged in nearly in all your debates so far. I'm seeing a lot of higher order assumptions and arguments.) Anyhow, if the refinement of morals as redefined as simple flourishing are dependent on the mere "side effects of culture at work" then I'm afraid this is just rife with problems. You say that "culture can help refine those morals into what is best for that specific time and situation." And this is the crux of the problem. Best for what? Flourishing? That's just a tautology then!
Agathon says2013-09-08T21:16:32.6900885-05:00
Magic8000, The reason I gave earlier for why we can say that God’s nature is the good is because God is a maximally great being, and it seems to be greater to be the standard of goodness rather than just to exemplify it. You would have to argue that moral perfection isn't a great making property for God.
Agathon says2013-09-08T21:25:17.0682568-05:00
And it's Agathon.
bladerunner060 says2013-09-08T22:01:27.4266083-05:00
@agathon: can you answer the kitten question? (further, the dilemma that you called question begging was not question begging. It is a valid dichotomy.) The "greatest concept is always absurd, btw, unless you're a deist...For wouldn't it be greater to be everything than not be? Of course, it's also self defeating, because wouldn't it be greater to be everything and know that you are, than to believe yourself separate? The whole concept of "greatest" in terms of normative claims is utterly incoherent...Why is it greater to be good AT ALL?
Agathon says2013-09-09T12:29:31.7246109-05:00
I thought I did answer the kitten question. How, again, is the dilemma not a false one if I gave a third coherent option? That God is the moral good, that He's the standard himself? What does it mean to say that "wouldn't it be greater to be everything than not be"? What do you mean by everything here? Is being a chair part of a great making property? At best this objection questions the dialogue of trying to figure out what God's great making properties are, it doesn't at all object to the coherency of a greatest possible being itself. How is a maximally great being self defeating if it's posited that one of its great making properties is axiological perfection? I find it strange that you would think it's not a great making property to be all good. What about an evil God: Such a conception of God I'm afraid doesn't seem to be worthy of worship, right?
bladerunner060 says2013-09-09T16:03:06.7284253-05:00
@Agathon: I missed your response, sorry, you did answer. Sort of. You answered it by claiming he wouldn't take action to end the life of the at because that's not his nature, which i take to mean that your answer is "no, he could not". In which case, his existence is irrelevant to the description of his nature, which would be all that's sufficient for the objective morality. We could merely describe that which is all good to achieve the objective morality, regardless of god. It's akin to asking if green would exist if there was nothing which reflected or emitted that wavelength of light....It could still exist and be described just fine as the abstract concept. The theist is in a strange position of claiming that god is the definition of all good, but attempting to rebut the Eurythphro dilemma by asserting that gods nature cannot involve free will, and must conform to X, which is being good, yet we cannot define x without god, yet there are actions you think you can assert as contrary to his nature. If he's the only standard, the answer should be YES, and he COULD make moral that which we think is immoral...It's just that's so clearly false that there MUST be some way around it.
Agathon says2013-09-09T18:44:36.6560937-05:00
Right, so how does God's all good nature imply that his existence is irrelevant to the description of his nature? You're saying God's nature is sufficient to explain objective morality, but it's not. How can God's nature both exist to explain morality and not exist? I think there's confusion over what counts as a things essence or nature here. A thing's nature or essence is such that - if you were to remove that nature, than that thing would cease to be what it is. Now the nature you want to remove from God is the property of all goodness, a moral standard. You can't do this without claiming that atheistic moral Platonism is true. And I've already given arguments against that. So you'll have to deal with those arguments. Which you clearly haven't dealt with when you say, "[morals] could still exist and be described just fine as the abstract concept." I showed that they can't. It's not at all a strange position to claim that God is the definition of moral goodness or the standard thereof. What else would be a more rational foundation for affirming objective morals than a maximally great, necessarily existing being? Since moral perfection is itself a great making property, and since they're necessary truths, then that fits perfectly in with theism. Atheism on the other hand is forced to either adopt moral platonism or nihilism, or to redefine morals altogether like Sam Harris. All of these are by comparison inadequate for a working moral ontology. So although it may be a nice little rhetorical point to say that the theist is in an awkward position, it's patently false logically.
Agathon says2013-09-09T18:47:41.5082067-05:00
You're still begging the question of moral Platonism when you say that God must conform to X, or in other words, to the moral standard (which to you exists Platonically). See the circle? So, again, it's meaningless to claim that God would choose something which isn't in his nature, this isn't contrary to libertarian freedom either, God consults his substantial self in what he chooses. That self is an all good being.
Agathon says2013-09-09T18:48:24.9352836-05:00
Think of it this way, God had a WWJD bracelet before it was (not) cool ;-)
Mikal says2013-09-09T20:41:22.6416216-05:00
Http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=SiJnCQuPiuo check that out. A friend mentioned it to me
Mikal says2013-09-09T20:41:23.7492429-05:00
Http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=SiJnCQuPiuo check that out. A friend mentioned it to me
Agathon says2013-09-09T21:33:15.9182537-05:00
Can't view it..
Jingram994 says2013-09-09T23:10:13.5013656-05:00
It's a problem with the way this site formats posted url's. Copy the URL directly, delete all capital letters and replace them with lower case versions; except for the "=SiJnCQuPiuo" part at the very end.
Mikal says2013-09-10T00:26:54.7474494-05:00
My bad, i have no idea why it does that. Youtube Shelly Kagan Vs William Lane Craig. It will be the first one you see almost. Its an hour and 20 or so
bladerunner060 says2013-09-10T11:14:36.8211501-05:00
@Agathon: Actually, it seemed to me that you were appealing to the Platonic ideal. You say he wouldn't do things such as the gratuitous killing of a kitten because it's against his nature. If he COULD do it, and it would be by definition moral, then the morality is subjective to him and to whatever nature he has. But you seemed to indicate that he could not, because it was "against his nature". That implies there's a way to know his nature...What would that way be, other than being able to compare "What god might do" to a specific standard? And, for the record, you did not show that they "can't" be described separate from god. You did so, when I said "Can God murder a kitten"; you compared it to his nature and said "no". That description of his nature is proscriptive (describing what he cannot do), and external (because it sets limits on his behavior). As such, we can ask what a "maximally good" response to any situation would be, and we do not need God to answer it.
bladerunner060 says2013-09-10T12:47:03.4140233-05:00
Fundamentally, though, I think a lot of the issue is a lack of understanding of what an "objective" moral system would be. I could say: "It is immoral to do anything with another person." Few people would accept this morality, but it would be an "objective" moral system: Is there another person involved? Then it's immoral.
Mikal says2013-09-10T16:12:36.7260226-05:00
The way Kagan explains it was pretty decent, and even craig could not object to it. Kagan acknowledge that if there was a God it would give a standard for morality in some way, but under the facade of his subjectivity. As blade mentioned, it would be objective in the sense that whatever he commanded would be good because he is the one initial being. The issue with it though was that it would be subjective at his will. Therefore would it really be objective? It would be objective to us, and indpeneant of what we believe but could change. He posed the question that it did not matter or now whether or not God give explain objective morality, but if there were other ways for us to have objectivity within morality without a God. Therefore there would be no need for it. He posed this under something he called the veil of ignorance. Morality is anything that a group of people would do to make a perfect society and help it flourish. They have to do so however behind a veil in which cultural influence, class systems, or anything like that would not play a factor in it. If you could take a group of people whom were rational and help them cultivate it, what would be the best possible outcome. Craig even acknowledged that could be a gauge, but was lacking a sense of universal justice. Kagan pointed out that it was irrelevant. It was in that video I linked, and to be honest Kagan was the first person I have ever seen to stump Craig all together with the issue. Which is essentially I think what blade was saying. There can be objectivity within morality, but just because it is lacking a divine or universal truth, does not take away the fact that it is objective. I am not claiming to do his claims justice, but if you watch the video, it will explain itself.
Polaris says2013-09-10T17:02:23.0178254-05:00
Objective morality =/= Absolutist Morality
Mikal says2013-09-10T17:16:04.0819608-05:00
Objective morality can be a lot of things, it depends on how you define it. It is something that exists independent of something else. Most people label it as existing without human influence, but you can go back farther and make the same claims on a divine level. All of it goes together in ways. There are truths that exist without the dependence of humans. Harming something without just cause is wrong, is a way a lot of people gauge it. Mostly non foundationilist. You can break that point down and go farther if you will, but posing the same essential outcome.
neurotic1 says2013-09-10T17:21:09.0384794-05:00
I was thinking about this today..... A subjective moral, a personal opinion, effects on person therefore others are SUBJECTED to it as one is subjected to torture. An Objective moral is experienced by all, it therefore is an universal objective. Hopefully i didn't subject you to too much there... Hehe
Polaris says2013-09-10T18:18:21.9558956-05:00
I think there is a lot of confusion between the meaning of terms here. In the study of moral philosophy, absolutism is the view some actions are moral or immoral at all times for all people, and in all circumstances. Objective morality is much broader. Objective morality, is any moral system that rests upon factors a or set of circumstances outside of personal opinion or cultural mores. In simple terms objective morality is any morality that is not moral relativism. Absolutism is a subset of objective morality, that is to say that all moral absolutism is objective but not all objective morality is absolutist. Make sense?
Mikal says2013-09-10T18:55:27.5258942-05:00
I know what they are lol. Whether or not it falls under absolutism is irrelevant. However we classify or gauge objective morality, it would appeal to moral absolutism regardless. Watch the video I gave up the other idea. When I mean it is a thought experiment it is just that, but it is a way you can judge morality with the well being of others in mind while it being independent of the need for humans.
Polaris says2013-09-10T19:34:28.9593209-05:00
No it doesn't. Absolutist morality is a subset of objective morality, not the other way around.
Agathon says2013-09-10T19:54:57.6410279-05:00
Mikal, I've seen the Shelly-Craig debate a while back. BladeRunner060, I'm certainly not appealing to the Platonic ideal. Things which are Platonic are themselves abstracta not grounded in anything. Now how does the meaninglessness of God's choosing against his nature imply there's a way to know his nature? We're saying that God's nature is morally perfect, how is this unknowable? Of course you can ask and answer what a greatest response is for some moral situation, that's not the argument. That's the question of how we would know moral truths, not their ontological foundation. We're not talking about ethics here, we're talking about moral ontology. And objective just means that X exists independently of human opinion.
Mikal says2013-09-10T19:55:56.2829315-05:00
It can easily work both ways, again its in the definition and perspective of it. Again objective morality is suppose to be something that exists independent of human relevance. If you use that as a preceptor for God, it would quite easily appeal to both.
Agathon says2013-09-10T20:07:06.9304502-05:00
Mikal, again, Kagan is pressuposing moral Platonism here when he says that if there was a God he could only give a standard under the facade of his subjectivity. And the argument isn't that because God was "first" then therefore he's the only competent authority to issue moral commands, no, it's that he is the maximally greatest being, and since it's greater to be morally perfect, and therefore an objective standard of what's morally good, then God is the necessarily existing objective moral standard in himself. That's the argument. You would have to show that moral perfection isn't a great making property. So God is the only competent moral authority on those grounds, and since his commands of duty issue forth from his morally perfect nature, then it wouldn't be just subjective at his will, but would be necessary reflections of his morally perfect nature itself. I know all about the "other ways for us to have objectivity within morality without a God". And they're all either less plausible or more arbitrary or both. Pick one, any one, and I can show ya why. For instance, if we redefine Morality as "anything that a group of people would do to make a perfect society and help it flourish" then you come into problems of logical identity and all that would be required to refute it is a simple counter example (which is easy given the amount of psychopaths in the world), also Kagan never answers why it would be morally good for humans to flourish anymore than cockroaches, he's guilty of an unjustified bias towards one species over another on that count. And Polaris is correct, that Objective morality =/= Absolutist Morality.
Mikal says2013-09-10T20:09:13.8950176-05:00
Sorry for the brief response but I am at work. I would not claim they are the same, but they can appeal to each other quite easily.
Mikal says2013-09-10T20:09:15.0025821-05:00
Sorry for the brief response but I am at work. I would not claim they are the same, but they can appeal to each other quite easily.
Agathon says2013-09-10T20:10:39.1738922-05:00
With that I'm probably going to leave the thread since I find myself replying to multiple people with the same thing.. If you want to continue the conversation just message me.. Good discussion gents! See ya later :-)
Mikal says2013-09-10T20:52:29.3600429-05:00
Will do lol
Mikal says2013-09-10T20:52:29.4746563-05:00
Will do lol
Polaris says2013-09-10T21:11:43.0542159-05:00
Morality is a product of society to ensure it's own perpetuation. Don't steal, don't kill, don't lie -- these are all dictates that promote co-operation within a group and ultimately promote it's own well-being.
simpleman says2013-09-11T01:40:08.1489475-05:00
To ask you, Mikal, if you find that God does exist, as I believe, what will be your response?
Mikal says2013-09-11T01:43:00.7144662-05:00
I will never find out, there has been no empirical evidence for thousands of years. I really doubt there will be any ever presented.
simpleman says2013-09-11T11:23:27.2150046-05:00
If you never read for yourself what the Bible makes claim of, you would never find a reason for it's disbelief either, even in the presence of empirical evidence to it's contrary.
Polaris says2013-09-11T11:52:55.5641268-05:00
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without it. We need not reason for disbelief, only reason for belief.
Mikal says2013-09-11T12:41:11.3996070-05:00
Just because the bible claims something does not make it correct, the bible in itself is inherently flawed.
simpleman says2013-09-13T03:42:47.4921522-05:00
Which is it you are really questioning, Mikal; the existence of God or of objective morality? Remember, if you allow that God exists at all, then you must qualify Him as initiating the standard and the standard's objectivity because it is implied that He created us in His image, thus giving us the same standard under which He Himself operates. But if you make morality subjective, then it ceases to be a standard, and is of necessity reduced to being defined as merely a differing culturally native phenomenon as the only possible definition left. So yes, God must needs exist on the basis of your question.
Jingram994 says2013-09-13T07:51:09.0071321-05:00
That's not necessarily the case; even if we did allow that the biblical God did in fact exist, and despite all evidence we were in fact created as we are in his direct image, then it still doesn't follow logically that he's some sort of moral standard in and of himself. Objective, with regards to morality, doesn't mean it's an absolute natural law, of the same type as gravity, but that it's a universal standard that all people can reasonably be expected to adhere to.
simpleman says2013-09-13T08:17:49.9545355-05:00
I said He is subject to the same law, not that He is the law itself. And since He created the moral law with the basis of having positive and negative consequences, the possibility of intentional disobedience to it is implied, hence the endowment of free will in humans. Yes, necessarily and logically that is the case
Jingram994 says2013-09-13T08:41:09.6509432-05:00
But the 'law', being a creation of god in that case, is nothing more than his own brand of subjective morality being enforced on others; theoretically, it's no different than if I had the power to set out a guideline of rules that I thought people should follow. Either the 'laws' being laid down have a 'higher' basis than myself, or they're simply meaningless personal opinions on my part. I'm actually getting tired of stating the Euthyphro Dilemma; is the 'law' 'good' because God commands it, or does god command the 'law' because it is good in itself? If the former, then it is simply his subjective ethical standard; if the latter, god is unnecessary for objective morality.
bladerunner060 says2013-09-13T10:01:39.8110675-05:00
@Agathon: The argument that any other objective morality would have insuficient basis fails both because one can make the same argument for God, and because that's irrelevant: you admitted in your first comment, and here, that such moral systems can exist--you just find them less "plausible" than God. Well, the OP was not one of plausibility, but of possibility, and by your own statements you should have clicked yes, because it is possible to have an objective moral system without reference to God.
simpleman says2013-09-13T10:27:47.8758761-05:00
What the Euthyphro Dilemna fails to acknowledge is that God is merited as being the most High, the most wise, the most powerful, the most loving, and the most humble being there is in existenc, to name a few qualities, which would make any moral law He subjects himself to the most virtous. Nice little paradox, but given God's nature, easily solved. The question puts God under man's limitations, which inclines people to choose one or the other. However; the answer is both. God, possessing perfect love, could only commend to us a good law. Also, God is infinitely good, so any law given could only reflect the same quality. There is a very old rabbinical principle called halakic reasoning that pertains to paradox exclusively that states between two seeming, not actual opposites, there exists the tension leading to a deeper truth through the inclusion of both prospects, moving from a position of either/or to a position of both/and. Both propositions in the supposed diliemna are true.
simpleman says2013-09-13T10:27:49.2799031-05:00
What the Euthyphro Dilemna fails to acknowledge is that God is merited as being the most High, the most wise, the most powerful, the most loving, and the most humble being there is in existenc, to name a few qualities, which would make any moral law He subjects himself to the most virtous. Nice little paradox, but given God's nature, easily solved. The question puts God under man's limitations, which inclines people to choose one or the other. However; the answer is both. God, possessing perfect love, could only commend to us a good law. Also, God is infinitely good, so any law given could only reflect the same quality. There is a very old rabbinical principle called halakic reasoning that pertains to paradox exclusively that states between two seeming, not actual opposites, there exists the tension leading to a deeper truth through the inclusion of both prospects, moving from a position of either/or to a position of both/and. Both propositions in the supposed diliemna are true.
simpleman says2013-09-13T10:27:51.8539526-05:00
What the Euthyphro Dilemna fails to acknowledge is that God is merited as being the most High, the most wise, the most powerful, the most loving, and the most humble being there is in existenc, to name a few qualities, which would make any moral law He subjects himself to the most virtous. Nice little paradox, but given God's nature, easily solved. The question puts God under man's limitations, which inclines people to choose one or the other. However; the answer is both. God, possessing perfect love, could only commend to us a good law. Also, God is infinitely good, so any law given could only reflect the same quality. There is a very old rabbinical principle called halakic reasoning that pertains to paradox exclusively that states between two seeming, not actual opposites, there exists the tension leading to a deeper truth through the inclusion of both prospects, moving from a position of either/or to a position of both/and. Both propositions in the supposed diliemna are true.
bladerunner060 says2013-09-13T11:19:43.5053909-05:00
But the problem with that, simpleman, is the attempt to say that anything god says is good, is good. When asked "Well, could he recommend murdering kittens?" The response is that no, he "could only commend to us a good law". In which case, the "good law" must be external to him...Otherwise the mere fact of his recommending it makes it a good law, rather than the other way around.
Jingram994 says2013-09-13T11:37:11.5608329-05:00
Whether or not God is 'merited as' being the '...Most High, most wise, the most powerful, the most loving, and the most humble...' is totally beside the point. While admirable qualities, they in no way make him somehow an inherently better judge of moral value statements than any other. While the statement 'God exists' is still an unproven tautology, assigning to him only those qualities that one believes place him outside the bounds of rational deduction is a fallacious ploy. It may well be the case that the god you are describing is 'infinitely good', but it does not therefore follow that any moral value statement he makes is therefore inherently 'right', whatever his qualities. The dilemma is not a false one; if god is inseparable from his law, then it is nothing more than his subjective view. If he is separable from it, then it exists independently of him and he is unnecessary. As bladerunner stated while I was writing this, it is indeed true that, if 'God is Good' is taken to it's logical conclusion, then *anything* God commands must be 'good' merely due to who is commanding it. If this is the case, then the 'morality' being appealed to is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to higher authority. If this is not the case, then morality exists separate from the being commanding us to follow it. You can't state that 'God *is* good' in that sense, and then simply make a list of things (that you think) he just 'wouldn't do'; you can't have it both ways.
simpleman says2013-09-13T11:43:44.3626104-05:00
If He subjects Himself to it, then it is external to Him. But only God could make anything of an absolute nature, hence the need for His existence. Remember that the dilemna speaks from the position of there being God, not the perspective of His absence. Once again, the first rule of logic states that infinites, such as God is, are exempt from the same classification as finite entities. Your inceesant assumptions on the premise of the supposed dilemna fail the first test of logic, thereby nullifying the reasonableness of your answer as regards basic logic.
simpleman says2013-09-13T11:45:13.7987660-05:00
I typed incessant assumptions
simpleman says2013-09-13T11:45:15.3900068-05:00
I typed incessant assumptions
simpleman says2013-09-13T11:45:17.0436492-05:00
I typed incessant assumptions
simpleman says2013-09-13T11:46:07.7449492-05:00
My phone keeps glitching for some reason
simpleman says2013-09-13T11:48:27.9826418-05:00
You simply cannot judge an infinite being on the same grounds that you would a finite being for logical reasons.
bladerunner060 says2013-09-13T11:52:16.2263972-05:00
@simpleman: (it seems to have eaten my first post) No. You're simply, and I mean this nicely, wrong. The dilemma's validity isn't affected by appeals to "infinity" (further, that's generally not the "first rule of logic", the law of identity is). Either God made the rules, or he did not. If he did not, he's unnecessary for them. If he did, he either did because of internal, subjective-to-him reasons, or external, objective-to-him reasons. If the former, then his morality is only objective to the rest of us...In the same way that if I made moral rules, they'd be objective to the rest of you. If the latter, then he's not necessary for them.
simpleman says2013-09-13T11:53:45.7570928-05:00
Actually the word I meant to use was obvious
simpleman says2013-09-13T12:29:02.4877513-05:00
If he is God, then He created all, including the rules. Any other possibility is impossible, or else He ceases to be God. But since you feel wronged and cheated, why not take it up with Him, and let Him know just how much He has slighted you? You have to include that God is Creator if that He is God at all. No sir, you are wrong. You improperly identified God.
simpleman says2013-09-13T12:36:25.2095798-05:00
If I give a gift to someone, is it a kind thing to do because I give it, or do I give it because it would be a kind thing to do? Or are both possible?
simpleman says2013-09-13T12:38:48.4992538-05:00
Just because objective as inserted in the sentence does not betray the nature of the logic.
bladerunner060 says2013-09-13T12:58:33.7942231-05:00
Who was that directed at, simple?
simpleman says2013-09-13T13:00:24.9460205-05:00
Because God is both infinite and Creator, there could be nothing that supercedes Himself. As Creator, he would also be the reference point for good, and as infinite He would be the most good. The question is self defeating in light of God's precedence, preeminence, and infinitudes. God would be the reference point and inspirer of all virtue as well. As an eternal being, He rests outside the restraints of physical limitations, and therefore bears no equivalence. He is absolute, and ultimate by very essence.
Polaris says2013-09-13T13:03:32.8364975-05:00
If responding to the Euthyphro dilemma with "It's both", then you have committed to circular reasoning.
simpleman says2013-09-13T13:59:53.3898431-05:00
Not so. There would only be grounds for such in the instance of mutual exclusivity, which has not been demanded by the question. Also, it is admissable that if an infinitely good Being created an inherently good but finite creation an objective standard of morality is the natural result of the act of creation itself, and that God did not have to create one, but rather just chose in His kindness to make us aware of it.
simpleman says2013-09-13T13:59:54.4333010-05:00
Not so. There would only be grounds for such in the instance of mutual exclusivity, which has not been demanded by the question. Also, it is admissable that if an infinitely good Being created an inherently good but finite creation an objective standard of morality is the natural result of the act of creation itself, and that God did not have to create one, but rather just chose in His kindness to make us aware of it.
simpleman says2013-09-13T14:33:15.9535532-05:00
Another implicit factor to consider would be the consideration that God is also Omnipresent, and therefore without bounds, which makes the argument difficult for something to be outside His influence. Also, if God is unnecessary and therefore non existent, from what point of reference does morality exist at all? Certainly for an objective standard of morality to exist, or for morality itself to exist at all, there must be a point man can refer to beyond himself. By erasing God from the equation, only finite values remain, and objective values cease to exist in the absence of a referential absolute. This would render such a proposition impossible on the basis of self ccontradiction. It would be like asking if life can exist outside the realm of existence.
Polaris says2013-09-13T15:29:34.2545191-05:00
Simpleman, something cannot be it's own justification. Your argument is fallacious for this reason.
simpleman says2013-09-13T16:35:29.9966478-05:00
Then explain existence
simpleman says2013-09-13T16:35:36.5020146-05:00
Then explain existence
simpleman says2013-09-13T16:35:45.8476946-05:00
Then explain existence
Polaris says2013-09-13T16:36:42.3519812-05:00
Existence is everything that is.
simpleman says2013-09-13T16:36:45.9868511-05:00
Something possessing no equal in ultimate value has to be so
emospongebob527 says2013-09-13T16:37:36.6406950-05:00
Lol, simpleman read logic, feed off of reasoning. You are starving.
simpleman says2013-09-13T16:38:03.7699469-05:00
There is nothing else which can justify it
simpleman says2013-09-13T16:47:27.2407512-05:00
If existence is all that there is, under which standard, or by which agency is this assumed and accepted to be the case positively?
emospongebob527 says2013-09-13T16:52:19.4932028-05:00
Existence itself
simpleman says2013-09-13T16:55:00.2781773-05:00
Emospongebob, I would fear that you, like many, lack both an understanding of what a context is and how it works in a practical sense, and also probably on that basis possess poor ability to utilize proper definitions. Pick up a dictionary and practice feeding on proper definition and the gravity and scope of it's importance foundationally. It might help you out in the lonh run.
simpleman says2013-09-13T16:55:47.8352093-05:00
Long run.
emospongebob527 says2013-09-13T16:56:14.6764849-05:00
Stop spouting this reasoning at me, it makes my brains fry like your mums fried chicken biscuits on a winter day in australia
Polaris says2013-09-13T16:59:44.9230757-05:00
"There is nothing else which can justify it" Simpleman, you are conflating cause with justification.
Polaris says2013-09-13T17:04:49.2391653-05:00
A justification is a some statement that warrants an inference.
simpleman says2013-09-14T16:56:28.4679756-05:00
No, justification is when an inference is seen as valid when weighed against the truth regarding a matter, hence the need for truth to possess definite and absolute values that reach beyond the subjective value of differing opinions.
simpleman says2013-09-14T17:02:58.0041444-05:00
The inherent value of truth supercedes the value of opinion, otherwise both are made equal and any hope of reference is lost. In which case all views are made equally true. But if all views are equally true, then the view that nothing is true would also be made true which is a self contadiction, thereby rendering silence only as the best and wisest decision if it be the case.
Polaris says2013-09-14T17:13:45.7464796-05:00
Justification is a noun, not an adjective. That being said, I don't see how any of this addresses the fact that your answer "it's both" constitutes circular reasoning. Something cannot be it's own justification.
Mikal says2013-09-15T14:03:19.4527697-05:00
What polar said.
mrsatan says2013-09-15T14:56:22.0795441-05:00
"If you never read for yourself what the Bible makes claim of, you would never find a reason for it's disbelief...". I REALLY wish people would take the time to learn a words meaning (in this case, "disbelief") before attempting to use it.
simpleman says2013-09-15T23:50:04.7602634-05:00
A noun is a person, place, or thing, not a moral concept.
Jingram994 says2013-09-16T00:05:16.0549591-05:00
A moral concept is a 'thing'.
simpleman says2013-09-16T00:16:17.1871557-05:00
Morality is relational. Without relationships, morality ceases existence. Objective by definition means relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence. We are not the determiners of reality, and nature is of itself neutral. Morality is not a natural or independent law, but one conceived and imposed deliberately. We are finite beings and lacking infinite kknowledge have no ability of determination beyond that pertaining to our actions, thoughts, and reactions, therefore I would pose a different question. Can objective moral values exist in God's absence, not being self determined, and therefore being the product of men?
Jingram994 says2013-09-16T01:44:43.6448010-05:00
Yes, yes they can. If it's 'conceived and imposed deliberately', then it's simply not 'objective'. If that's the case, then it's nothing more than one being's subjective ethical stance being forced on all others. Objective morality isn't so much a 'product of men' as it's a product of reason and the basic human condition. Why is it wrong to kill? It certainly isn't because some guy, one time, said that it was wrong, and then it was written down afterward. It's wrong to kill because an individual, such as me, has their own unique consciousness and ability to comprehend and interact with the world and other people around me. I have a basic right to exist as myself, and do just that, and it's wrong to take that away from me, assuming that I haven't done likewise to someone else. 'Objective morality' doesn't mean 'exists entirely apart from the basic reality it's being applied to', in which case it is effectively just unsubstantial thought. It means 'exists separately from any individual it's being applied to'. Slavery, for example, is wrong, not because God said so, and not because our specific culture views slavery as wrong. It's wrong because it violates rights inherent to all persons, and takes away their basic freedom and right to equality. Regardless of what any individual or culture may think, slavery is still necessarily wrong in and of itself. By simple definition, objective morality *must* exist independently of God, and indeed all other beings, or it just plain is not objective.
simpleman says2013-09-16T02:52:17.6995763-05:00
Objective does not offer the ability of independent existence, or did you not read the definition I provided from Webster's Dictionary? It cannot self exist independent of beings capable of relationship. And what's more, it cannot precede beings in relationship. It cannot either be the product of beings with less than infinite knowledge for it to be completely impartial. Only God can and has provided such a law. Name otherwise how His law is partial, and whom it is partial against. Also it is an absolute because it offers both the freedom to obey it or break it. Sorry, but you haven't the foggiest idea of what an objective moral law implies to start with. The damnable dilemna question defeats itself, because God created an impartial law which is the embodiment of being good and just and equitable, and prescribed it for that reason.
simpleman says2013-09-16T02:55:54.8821386-05:00
Read the definition of the word objective for yourself before you extrapolate your own definitions.
simpleman says2013-09-16T03:00:34.8338804-05:00
It is not an instinct either. You have created it's existence from a vaccuum. It has to exist because someone introduces it. If it just naturally occurred, then all the evil men commit would not exist. Name one society who has ever modeled by their laws a society exhibiting such a circumstance as you propose.
simpleman says2013-09-16T03:02:49.5693132-05:00
For your logic to be true, it must be also practical, not merely theoretical. Offer ideas that are existentially true, not hypothetically possible.
simpleman says2013-09-16T03:04:59.7286724-05:00
And by the way, morality preexisted slavery, and yet slavery preexisted the prohibition against it as being an immoral thing, so your notion is false.
simpleman says2013-09-16T03:13:13.1088459-05:00
And no, you don't have a right to exist. None of us do. Nature, by God's design, allows you the freedom to. Did any one of us bring ourselves into existence? Then we cannot claim ownership of ourselves either, unless you can determine both your birth and your demise and all that follows by your own authority.
Jingram994 says2013-09-16T03:15:50.2828759-05:00
All laws offer the 'freedom' to obey or break it. That isn't true freedom, and it doesn't make them absolutes. Your entire argument does not work, as it implies that, aside from being a created value, this supposed 'impartial law of God' is inherently tied to him and is not an external value to himself. If that is the case, then it is nothing more than his subjective opinion. I won't repeat myself again. Objective: adjective 4. Being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions. **5. Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.** **6. Intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.** **7. Being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).** 8. Of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. Subjective: adjective 1. Existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). **2. Pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.** 3. Placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric. 4. Philosophy . Relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself. **5. Relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.** By the definitions given by each term, it is entirely impossible for a moral value created and enforced by god to be 'objective' in the actual sense of the word. As the concept of 'persons', and the basic 'human condition', exist independently of any individual person/human, to state that moral values introduced based on those core concepts are 'subjective' is misleading. The experience of 'being a person' is inherently a subjective one, true, but it has an objective basis that exists apart from any individual that is subjectively experiencing it. Thus, whilst one's individual 'experience' of life is subjective, the basis on which human life is 'experienced' is objective. Thus, moral values that do not work in accord with this basic 'human condition' are inherently wrong. I, as a person, have free will, and the right to exercise it. Placing undue limitations on this ability to exercise my free will, assuming that I have no intent to harm another and thus limit *their* ability to exercise free will. Slavery is a priori wrong as it places inherent, unfair and hypocritical limitations on this basic right to exercise free will. If positions in a master-slave relationship were reversed, the new slave would undoubtedly argue that his slavery was wrong or unjust. As slavery, as a condition of life, cannot coexist with freedom without hypocrisy, inherent unfairness and inequality, it is wrong. I can assure you that every slave throughout history has felt as though the conditions and limitations they were living under were wrong, unfair and unjust; the fact that this was not legally recognized until fairly recently is beside the point with regard to the morality of slavery. Also, yes I do have a right to exist. Rights exist independently of authority, or the ability to actually enforce those rights. I didn't have a right to exist *before* I existed, which may be an important distinction to make, but as an existent, unique individual I *do* have an inherent right to exist as myself, assuming I don't infringe upon that same right held by others. And just a nitpick here, but could you please refrain from posting you comments in groups of three or four separate comments? I've had to revise this several times because of that. Thanks.
Jingram994 says2013-09-16T05:15:52.1650121-05:00
Also I'd like to apologize for the apparent lack of proper formatting in that post. It was supposed to be broken up into several paragraphs, but apparently you just can't do that on poll comments.
simpleman says2013-09-16T09:25:37.8015287-05:00
Again, you have to demonstrate how God's law fails the test of impartiality.
simpleman says2013-09-16T09:29:09.7723201-05:00
And again, absolutes do not exist in a vaccuum. They must contain a purpose and a derivative, elsewise, what is the absolute pertaining to if it lacks a context to be placed in to begin with?
Jingram994 says2013-09-16T09:31:24.7210001-05:00
First of all, just stop right there. Collate all of your thoughts about this topic and put them all into one post. If you keep on triple posting like that I'm just going to stop responding. I can't put together a relevant reply if you just keep adding new information to deal with every two minutes.
simpleman says2013-09-16T09:44:17.2790567-05:00
Morality regards behavior within the context of relationships. Right and wrong are issues that are not independently apparent. There must be a reason for this to be so. It cannot be found in the absence of a reference that assigns it such ability to valuate between the entities it is subjecting to it's principle. Morality is a result of intelligence, it does not itself possess it to make judgements itself and prescribe them with any coherent meaning. An object of thought cannot assign it's own purpose, or definition, or assume any other qualities autonomously. A thought requires a thinker to perform the action of thinking. Otherwise, the ludricous notion you are left with is that existence is the result of thought instead of thought being the result of existence.
simpleman says2013-09-16T09:48:55.3388039-05:00
Also, a thought absent of a thinking being is equivocal to oblivion possessing intelligence. Right and wrong require also an observer capable of value judgements.
Jingram994 says2013-09-16T09:55:22.5694505-05:00
The 'context' of the objective value is 'humanity in the real world'. The reason that 'god's law' fails the 'test of impartiality' is because it's nothing more than his opinion. Reread what I wrote. No moral value has real meaning outside of the context of 'persons in the real world'. You simply can't meaningfully apply moral standards to trees, or lions, or volcanic eruptions. The standard is based in the 'human condition', and in the human ability to reason, within the bounds of that unique 'condition'. I've stated this before; if 'god's law' is inseparable from him, then it's nothing more that 'what he wants'. Regardless of how 'great' a being he may be, and how good his intentions might be, that simply doesn't make what he wants an objective standard unto itself. And of course, if the 'law' is separable from him, then it exists entirely independent of him and he is totally unnecessary and little more than a middle man. I thought I said I wasn't going to repeat myself on that point? You're confusing lack of belief in absolutes with lack of belief in external reality. The two simply do not 'conflate' like that. 'Absolute' and 'objective' aren't the same thing. *Of course* morality exists in relation to the thinking beings that come under it's purview. That's what I said. That said, however, it's not the same thing as being dependent upon the specific individual being being discussed. Slavery is wrong. It is not wrong because I think it is. It is not wrong because my society thinks it is. It is wrong because it is impossible for slavery and freedom to coexist without inherent hypocrisy on the part of those doing the enslaving, and unfairness and unjustness on the part of their society. Did you even read what I wrote? 'Objective' doesn't mean that the standard itself holds it's own 'value judgements' on the part of unthinking third parties, which is patently absurd; it means that the standard that is applicable to a given rational, thinking species does not change according to the whims of a specific culture or individual within that species.
lannan13 says2013-09-24T16:00:39.2596858-05:00
This is too many posts.
lannan13 says2013-09-24T16:00:40.1855910-05:00
This is too many posts.
lannan13 says2013-09-24T16:00:45.7024858-05:00
This is too many posts.
lannan13 says2013-09-24T16:00:46.3477490-05:00
This is too many posts.
lannan13 says2013-09-24T16:00:51.7766882-05:00
This is too many posts.
lannan13 says2013-09-24T16:00:55.3803806-05:00
This is too many posts.
simpleman says2013-09-24T17:26:24.4925013-05:00
But man passes the test of pariality? Really? Sit 10 men in a room together to answer the question of how to lead a nation, and see how many agree. Humanity can scarcely show unity in one family, much less the entire world. What you fail to answer is how children repulse from evil things even upon the first experience. It is instinctual to our being, not the result of experimental thought.
simpleman says2013-09-24T17:30:29.4125013-05:00
All this argument is about or from at all is that the questioner overestimates himself. Man is his own worst problem, not his own best solution. If you want proof, look at the history of the Soviet Union after they threw God even out of the realm of discussion in their government. Is that the utopian vision of humanity in the real world producing an impartial moral code? I should hope not.
bladerunner060 says2013-09-24T19:45:25.1818289-05:00
Simpleman: seriously, I think you misunderstand "objective". If you want to defend God as the "best" source for morality, go crazy--that's something we could debate. However, the points you're making here have nothing to do with objectivity.
Jingram994 says2013-09-25T02:02:31.9857590-05:00
Children 'repulse' from *frightening* things, or things that they don't understand. It is our instinct to attempt to preserve our own lives; the fact is that we can *also* justify this in rational thought due to the value placed on individual persons. The fat that not all people hold identical points of view is beside the point; if they did, then something would be *very* wrong with the situation. That's what 'Human Rights' are for; to allow everyone to hold their own unique perspective and ideas while still ensuring that all are able to coexist in peace. To maximize both individuality and cooperation. The fact that not all humans 'instinctually' hold the same beliefs and ideals doesn't matter. That doesn't mean that they can't live in peace and without infringing on the rights of others. And your soviet union analogy is irrelevant; the key point to that is Totalitarianism, not Atheism. The fact that they made certain personal beliefs illegal to hold is more important than what those specific beliefs are. Also, even at it's height, the soviet union was heavily backed by the Russian Orthodox church; hardly an 'atheist utopia' by any definition of the word. As the beliefs of certain individuals were being forced on everyone else, the society was neither truly free nor truly equal, and the situation as a whole was unfair. Fact is that you can't *make* people believe what you want them to believe; that's not what 'objective morality' is, that's enforcing your own subjective standards. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a lot closer to what I have in mind.
simpleman says2013-09-25T10:13:35.2735181-05:00
Objective morality does not imply ontological independence. It is a contingent object of thought, not a self existent frame of being. So you are left with two options then. Decide which is more capable of impartiality; men or God. I am not lost on objective morality. I think you separate it from being something dependent upon someone to frame right and wrong in the context of relationship, which is what it applies to in the first place.
simpleman says2013-09-25T10:17:27.3985421-05:00
Totalitarian or not, God was dismissed from their societal beliefs. If you want a good dealing on the topic, read some of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's account of having lived through the rise of communism in Russia.
simpleman says2013-09-25T10:20:27.5658061-05:00
Or also, where do you think the basic construct of our basic laws and freedoms in the United States came from? I will give you a hint, there are 10 of them.
GiantSpoonMan says2013-09-25T10:23:58.1544493-05:00
Damn you Mikal and your popular polls.
GiantSpoonMan says2013-09-25T10:24:00.1269226-05:00
Damn you Mikal and your popular polls.
higa123 says2013-10-11T10:10:35.3311680-05:00
Wow, lots of comments. Anyway, I think we can all agree that there are morals that all humans, regardless of religion, usually follow. Here's my argument (pro) simplified: 1) There is a universal set of moral laws that usually everyone follows. 2) Laws cannot exist without a Law-giver. 3) Therefore, there was a Law-giver (God) Notice the "usually" in 1. That is there not because these laws are subjective, but because people break laws, just like the laws of a state or country (no drinking and driving, using illegal drugs, murder, etc.) These laws apply to everyone, but that doesn't stop some from breaking them. Secondly, the arguments about subjectivity are self-defeating in principle. People are saying, more or less, "It is an objective truth that everything (including morality) is subjective." This violates the Law of Noncontradiction. If the statement is false, than some things are objective. If it is true, than the statement itself is subjective, making the part "everything is subjective" subject to interpretation, letting there be objective truths. It is a no-win for subjectivity - there is objective truths and morals. Third, morality is not just the "natural law," as some claim. I don't know if this was brought up in the other comments, but I didn't read most of them. If you notice, natural law (in the realm of decisions) is what people DID, but moral law is what people OUGHT TO DO. If someone is walking next to me and accidentally trips me, they are not in the wrong. If someone tries to trip me, but trips themselves, they are in the wrong. According to natural law, I would be more angry at the one who accidentally tripped me, but I'm not. Fourth, many people state that if God was perfectly moral, why is the world such an immoral place? Makes sense, seems like a good argument. However, there arguments actually defeats (although doesn't answer) itself. How does one know how moral or immoral the world is if we don't have a perfect example to judge it too? We know in our hearts what perfect morality is, but if there is no one to put it there, how did it get there? How could we create a perfect set of morals when we had never achieved or even come close to this perfect morality? The logical answer is that this perfect moral vision was put there by a perfectly moral being (God). The answer to the original question in this paragraph is for another argument (it's evil, the deprivation of a moral sense which allows people to break moral laws). Furthermore, to address some common arguments against an objective moral code: 1)Moral Law is not herd instinct: This is true because if it was, then the stronger impulse a person faces would always be right. A person's instincts would also always be right. We know that this isn't true. 2) Moral Law is not social convention: The same basic moral laws can be found throughout every culture, society, and culture. It is impossible that all these fundamentally different people all someone reached the same consensus about moral codes. Also, not everything learned through society is based on social convention (some examples include math and logic). 3) Moral Law is not from the laws of nature: Already stated above. To recap, natural law is the way things are, moral law is how they should be. Something that is factually convenient (the way it is) can be immoral. 4) Moral Law is not just "human fancy": People know that we cannot just dump our morals, even though we may really want to. Also, if it were just human fancy, then all value judgments ("Racism is wrong, murder is wrong", etc.) would be meaningless.
bladerunner060 says2013-10-11T19:24:38.8316145-05:00
"It is impossible that all these fundamentally different people all someone reached the same consensus about moral codes." -- in the first place, no, they didn't, and in the second, no, it isn't. Things like "Don't murder" are patently obvious in nigh-any moral system, so it's not impossible that diverse people's would agree on the concept. At the same time, there's a pretty wide gulf between people's moral systems and what they consider to be "justifiable" homicide, demonstrating that no, they didn't all reach the same conclusion.
Greematthew says2013-10-12T08:52:01.2476070-05:00
God instilled humans with the ability to be moral and know right from wrong. That doesn't mean you have to be religious to be moral. An atheist can be just as moral as a Christian, Muslim, or Jew. But God is the foundation of everything.
Greematthew says2013-10-12T08:52:09.1725594-05:00
God instilled humans with the ability to be moral and know right from wrong. That doesn't mean you have to be religious to be moral. An atheist can be just as moral as a Christian, Muslim, or Jew. But God is the foundation of everything.
bladerunner060 says2013-10-12T10:51:05.4398707-05:00
Greematthew: That wasn't the question. The question was whether it is necessary to have a god for objective moral values to exist, and the answer to that is "No". You may feel that god exists and IS the foundation, but that doesn't address the question.
Greematthew says2013-10-12T11:15:50.2505421-05:00
I know. I was just addressing other concerns.
simpleman says2013-10-12T16:15:48.9839022-05:00
Morality does not exist in a vacuum. It is posited by intelligent beings in a conscious state of relationship, it does not and cannot precede the entities it is contingent upon for it's veracity or validity. If man is capable of a complete objectivity, why then is human history the record of man's failure in the attempt? Are you so deluded as to assume we have attained such a stasis in any stretch of time in human history? If so, when?
simpleman says2013-10-12T16:15:49.5372946-05:00
Morality does not exist in a vacuum. It is posited by intelligent beings in a conscious state of relationship, it does not and cannot precede the entities it is contingent upon for it's veracity or validity. If man is capable of a complete objectivity, why then is human history the record of man's failure in the attempt? Are you so deluded as to assume we have attained such a stasis in any stretch of time in human history? If so, when?
Lucas.Pinch says2013-10-15T12:28:05.1579579-05:00
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
AaronMcCartney says2013-10-16T10:29:13.0729015-05:00
If there is no god then humans are nothing more than a collection of atoms. Emotions would be inevitable chemical reactions. If this is true murder would not be evil in any way because humans would be no more valuable than a rock, which is also a collection of atoms. Morals say that murder, stealing, cheating, etc.. Are bad. These things are inevitable and meaningless without a god. Therefore, a god is required for morals to exist because without a god, humans have no value. With God, humans have a soul and therefore have more value than something that is just a collection of atoms. Morals only exist when humans have value which is only true if a god created us.
AaronMcCartney says2013-10-16T10:29:26.4578731-05:00
If there is no god then humans are nothing more than a collection of atoms. Emotions would be inevitable chemical reactions. If this is true murder would not be evil in any way because humans would be no more valuable than a rock, which is also a collection of atoms. Morals say that murder, stealing, cheating, etc.. Are bad. These things are inevitable and meaningless without a god. Therefore, a god is required for morals to exist because without a god, humans have no value. With God, humans have a soul and therefore have more value than something that is just a collection of atoms. Morals only exist when humans have value which is only true if a god created us.
AaronMcCartney says2013-10-16T10:29:38.4700271-05:00
If there is no god then humans are nothing more than a collection of atoms. Emotions would be inevitable chemical reactions. If this is true murder would not be evil in any way because humans would be no more valuable than a rock, which is also a collection of atoms. Morals say that murder, stealing, cheating, etc.. Are bad. These things are inevitable and meaningless without a god. Therefore, a god is required for morals to exist because without a god, humans have no value. With God, humans have a soul and therefore have more value than something that is just a collection of atoms. Morals only exist when humans have value which is only true if a god created us.
bladerunner060 says2013-10-16T10:46:23.2597453-05:00
AaronMCarney: No. First: a moral system could trivially be made to be objective. What you're actually saying is an apepal to authority--if God doesn't say it, it doesn't count. So in the first place, the question is still "No". But if you want to say that a god is required for any morals to have validity, you'd have to give WHY that would be, and simple assertion or appeal to might-makes-right ain't it.
tulsakaleb says2013-10-23T17:59:04.4514688-05:00
Morals change over time and are not set in stone, while morality itself is a very abstract concept itself. I voted yes even though I do not believe in God, because in the mind of the believers, they see morals as objective while outside of that perspective we see ever-changing morals and new justifications for things some would qualify as immoral. Murder is justified in many groups such as street gangs. The morality of street gangs revolves around caring for no one else but the ones close to you while all others are tools. Another example is the new generation's leaning towards the legalization of gay marriage, once widely considered immoral.
MMaximuSS1975 says2013-11-10T10:24:12.4226076-06:00
Objective morality, like absolute truth, does not exist. Philosophical sophistry. Just because it can be imagined, does not mean that it must or can exist.
AaronMcCartney says2013-11-13T01:54:07.9216696-06:00
Bladerunner060: What is flawed about my argument? Which statement(s) do you find untrue? If there is no god, then are we not just a bunch of atoms? If we are just a bunch of atoms, then are not our emotions just a bunch of inevitable chemical reactions? If so, then does that not make us of equal value to a rock? Therefore, would this not make murder and other morally "wrong" thing perfectly meaningless without a god? Is it not true that if we were created, that we have a soul that gives us more value than a collection of atoms? If you put all of this together, does it not mean that a creator or god is required for morals to exist? This poll asks, "Do you need a God for objective moral values to exist?" My statement answers this question perfectly and has nothing to do with "an appeal to authority." If you disagree, please tell me at which statement I went wrong.
bladerunner060 says2013-11-13T08:46:39.7048196-06:00
AaronMcCartney: In the first place, I did--did you not actually READ the comment, or did you just rather skim it? You don't just get to assert that things are different WITH a god. To answer the last of your string of questions "No". No, having a soul does not "give us more value than a collection of atoms". It might *to you*, and that's fine, but that's a subjective value judgment. To answer the one immediately previous: if "murder and other morally "wrong" thing[s] are perfectly meaningless without a god", then I would argue they'd be just as meaningless WITH a god unless, again, you take into account a subjective value judgment. And yes, your statement is an appeal to authority--God being the authority. But without any grounds other than at best assertion that God's authority has any meaning whatosever.
Geckofrog7 says2013-11-13T14:45:09.9312288-06:00
Ya'll folks need Kane.
yay842 says2013-11-13T18:48:24.5552262-06:00
Ya'll folks need a life outside the screen,
dr_dunkenstein says2013-11-22T15:50:31.4667846-06:00
Logically impossible.
dr_dunkenstein says2013-11-22T15:50:35.3775222-06:00
Logically impossible.
simpleman says2013-11-23T12:58:13.3258161-06:00
To posit a moral law without a transcendent lawgiver is like raising the question of evil without a questioner.
simpleman says2013-11-23T12:58:21.8902161-06:00
To posit a moral law without a transcendent lawgiver is like raising the question of evil without a questioner.
2-D says2013-11-23T13:01:40.3381132-06:00
@Simpleman I know it looks like that when you just do what a book tells you but the rest of us are used to making tough moral decisions. So Are you. If God is moral is it because he says he is or because we all agree he is?
brepar says2013-11-27T03:17:55.2518220-06:00
Humanity, being a social species, would inevitably place rules onto itself to keep some degree of harmony within a group as without this it would be nearly inpossible to complete even the most basic of tasks. Thereby these rules would develop into the morallity system that keeps our society quite well unified, even if different opinions on these morals does sometimes cause rifts between people. In addition it seems likely that, since god gave us the free will to plan our own lives he would not have given us rules under which to live them, thereby affecting our individual development, but instead left us to fend for ourselves to see if we truly deserved eternal peace
brepar says2013-11-27T03:19:00.1802706-06:00
Sorry about that, computer lagged. I had no intention of spamming your debate.
andersonmoshi says2013-11-30T12:22:06.6269578-06:00
There are no objective moral values without God. Any absolute moral laws or standards require a law enforcer (giver), if a human decides "objective" moral values for others, that is just based on arbitrary whim..
bladerunner060 says2013-11-30T14:20:00.1049949-06:00
Andersonmoshi (and, frankly, others): You do not understand what "objective" means.
Silentsvc says2013-12-02T12:39:03.0360975-06:00
We sometimes confuse morals with ethics, they are not the same. Morality is the social morays of society and even as a Christian I can conceede as humans we decide morals. However, ethics we do not decide, we only decide our response to them(morals). For example, "Morality is "what is" and Ethics is "what ought to be". Our morals can change over time, but that doesnt necessarily make them ethically correct
Silentsvc says2013-12-02T12:39:07.5747980-06:00
We sometimes confuse morals with ethics, they are not the same. Morality is the social morays of society and even as a Christian I can conceede as humans we decide morals. However, ethics we do not decide, we only decide our response to them(morals). For example, "Morality is "what is" and Ethics is "what ought to be". Our morals can change over time, but that doesnt necessarily make them ethically correct
2-D says2013-12-02T13:04:29.4648975-06:00
@Silentsvc I won't get into dispute over your definitions but do you care to elaborate on your "yes" vote? It looks like you're saying that morals are a response to Ethics that can only be a product of a God. Using your definitions I would say that ethics are a product of evolutionary biology and can be evaluated and refined using our reasoning. I think we are discovering ethics and refining on our knowledge as in any other discipline. Morals then would be a sort of strategy and ethics would be the goal. Strategies differ but I believe we are converging on a goal: broadly, and I'm channeling Harris here, "the well-being of conscious creatures."
TheCommonMan says2013-12-04T20:17:26.7099139-06:00
While morals can be influenced by anything, morals are adapted on an individual basis. That being said, everyone can have their own morality based on what they are influenced by. For example, someone might have morals based on the values of the country they live in and the things set forth in their countries' constitution. That's just one of many other examples.
TheCommonMan says2013-12-04T20:17:32.0412744-06:00
While morals can be influenced by anything, morals are adapted on an individual basis. That being said, everyone can have their own morality based on what they are influenced by. For example, someone might have morals based on the values of the country they live in and the things set forth in their countries' constitution. That's just one of many other examples.
dmartin says2014-01-06T14:32:20.6002465-06:00
I feel as though anyone who thinks "Yes" to this debate do not realize or do not want to realize the fact that the American government is run with the church not interfering with the state, and murder is illegal. Not because it's a sin, but because it's innately wrong even before Christ existed. Do your research and you'll learn that peoples before Christ also saw murder as wrong. So in order to answer this question involving God, think the about times before when there was none.
supershamu says2014-01-06T20:48:19.9547085-06:00
@dmartin that is true, but the question posed is "do you need a God for objective moral values to exist." It is not do you need a religion for objective moral values to exist. People who don't believe in a God still have moral values just like those of us who think there is a God. The question is why. I believe that objective morality does not exist in a naturalistic setting because "morally good" is often unnatural.
Samiam says2014-01-30T19:54:33.9211645-06:00
While I believe in the Abrahamic God (specifically, I am Catholic), I don't think truly "objective" moral values exist on Earth with Him in the scheme, because anyone can take a completely objective standpoint and twist it how they like. For instance, the commandment of "Do not kill" can be taken to have vastly different meanings depending on what one wishes it to mean. It could mean "Do not kill under any circumstances. No war, no killing in self-defense, nada." Others may take it to mean not to kill any person, but then prescribe who counts as a person. While I believe in the Catholic Catechism, there have been numerous dark spots (considering that for over a thousand years, it was one of the premier powers of Europe, and so those who wished for power, but lacked the right bloodline, would often seek it in the church) and among those are the massacres that resulted when a group was not considered a people (no specific instances come to my mind, but I'm sure someone could dig it up) and so the "objective moral code" was bypassed. More may say that killing is only acceptable in self-defense, or when someone is too dangerous to live (like serial murderers), but this stance can still be twisted when the wielders choose it to. There are countless other interpretations of this and other "objective" commandments from God and even from humanity, but it can always be twisted. Thus, my vote is no, because there cannot be an objective moral code without God because, at least on Earth, there cannot seem to be an objective moral code with God. Apologies are extended for my ranting :)
Iredia says2014-02-20T20:54:32.1233676-06:00
@ Mikal: Try this sh*t. Why art thou Mikal ? Art thou named Mikal because thou art Mikal itself ? Or art thou Mikal because thou art so named ? If thou dost claim ye be Mikal itself, then you lie, for t'is plain thoyst be not Mikal (as writ), or 'mee-kal' (as sung), or the one I see ? Which Mikal art thou ? And if thou claim to be Mikal because thou art thusnnamed, then thou be not Mikal ? For you may be named as thou wilt. You may be what thou wilt; a female, a wife, a merchant and another may be so named. By name which ye bear ye are rendered nameless. I never really fancy arguments which see dilemmas where they need not be seen. What next ! 1 + 1 = 3 because I say it is so, or it is so because it so ?
jmcmillin777 says2014-03-09T21:47:19.2580140-05:00
Do you think all the people who did the shootings lately were religious? HELL NO! Think about it. Wouldn't you think about the consequences if you went out killed people? If you're atheist( which I don't mind if you are), you might think, "oh well there is no God, heavens, and hell, so I will not have to face the consequences, I will just die.
jmcmillin777 says2014-03-09T21:47:58.4592385-05:00
Do you think all the people who did the shootings lately were religious? HELL NO! Think about it. Wouldn't you think about the consequences if you went out killed people? If you're atheist( which I don't mind if you are), you might think, "oh well there is no God, heavens, and hell, so I will not have to face the consequences, I will just die
bladerunner060 says2014-03-09T22:30:11.8822812-05:00
@jmcmillin777: You should probably know what you're talking about if you're going to make certain claims...James Holmes and Adam Lanza both were church-goers. Lanza was Catholic and Holmes was Lutheran. So, yes, they were religious--and no, it did nothing to stop them.
liamwbently says2014-03-16T22:00:04.1438235-05:00
No, you don't need god for anything.
LeftyBuddhist says2014-03-17T17:41:09.6277775-05:00
Fear of persecution fuels religious people, correct? This isn't a true reflection of moral values- only when an individual wishes to aid others selflessly shall they be truly acting upon moral values.
Dadebater2016 says2014-03-19T23:19:08.9777165-05:00
No, our so called 'God' has stated that gays should be stoned, woman can be raped, and that slaves are perfectly acceptable. I think the bible is the stupidest thing to use as a set of morals, because if you do, you'll probably end up in jail.
mrgalvaprime says2014-04-11T06:32:47.3844681-05:00
No they can't be, because even if there was a god, his opinion doesn't matter more than ours
LogicPrevails says2014-04-27T15:41:55.8912836-05:00
There are no objective moral values.
thatkid1 says2014-04-30T19:30:15.0876158-05:00
Moral values do not have to be followed entirely by the culture, they are an individual's point of veiw.
debate_power says2014-05-18T14:02:38.2305706-05:00
What is all fact? Opinion. The opinions of us, the humans. The facts we take to be true are merely opinions founded on faith in principles. There needs to be a higher being to provide some sense of order or a sense of morals in a world filled with chaos where anything humans can argue is morally acceptable is acceptable. Even if you don't realize it, your morals are all based on faith in this divine principle. You unconsciously accept that there must be a higher order that dictates which things are wrong. How did I decide there must be a God? My faith. How did scientists conclude that heat is a form of electromagnetic energy? Their faith. Without God to tell us what is right and what is wrong- if you think about it, that would mean nothing would be understandable. Nothing. And what do we humans, deep down, every last one of us, want? For everything to make sense. If you asked me, I'd say that was put there by God so we'd at least have a chance of believing in Him.
Jingram994 says2014-05-19T02:34:33.4859642-05:00
"How did scientists conclude that heat is a form of electromagnetic energy? Their faith." No, wrong. We can verify and prove, using real physical evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this is the case. Belief in the supernatural is not so lucky. "Without God to tell us what is right and what is wrong- if you think about it, that would mean nothing would be understandable. Nothing." That makes no sense. First of all, God *doesn't* 'tell' anyone anything; please prove this being even exists before you go making wild accusations as to this being's nature and actions. "And what do we humans, deep down, every last one of us, want? For everything to make sense. If you asked me, I'd say that was put there by God so we'd at least have a chance of believing in Him." I don't think that morality and God are in any way, shape or form interconnected even if we did take the existence of both as a given. Please explain how one is contingent on the other.
SilverMenace2 says2014-05-23T10:15:31.5067660-05:00
Believing in any deity has nothing to do with morality. I'm not religious, but I do live by my own code of ethics.
SilverMenace2 says2014-05-23T10:17:32.8722937-05:00
Believing in any deity has nothing to do with morality.
evangambit says2014-06-03T00:24:51.3185007-05:00
If "objective moral values" exist, from what could they be derived if not from a higher power? This isn't to say you can't behave morally without a belief in a higher (or, perhaps a better word would be "fundamental") power -- only that your ethics aren't derived "objectively" (e.G. Moral relativism, "it seems wrong", "it's wrong b/c it's illegal", etc.). For me, the entire point of a divine being is that it is objectively declaring that ethics/morality exist on an absolute scale. If I believe in God, I don't believe that God always does good, so much as whatever God would do is God. That is, in my opinion, the true value (whether correct or not) of belief in a religion.
Jingram994 says2014-06-03T04:06:37.0087137-05:00
"If "objective moral values" exist, from what could they be derived if not from a higher power?" Who's to say that you can meaningfully derive *objective* moral values from a 'higher power', assuming both exist? It's more likely you are simply deriving their opinion, which is only as meaningful as the next person's. "For me, the entire point of a divine being is that it is objectively declaring that ethics/morality exist on an absolute scale. If I believe in God, I don't believe that God always does good, so much as whatever God would do is God. That is, in my opinion, the true value (whether correct or not) of belief in a religion." And I disagree. I can't see why anyone would imagine a correlation between genuinely objective (thus totally independent of that higher power) moral values and the existence and point of view of a 'higher power'. You can believe in a higher power and believe that morality is subjective, and you can not believe in any higher power and still believe that morality is objective. What, if anything, this higher power thinks/has to say on the issue of morality is only as meaningful as is the next person's thoughts or opinions on the matter. If morals are actually objective, the existence or lack thereof of *any* being or opinion is absolutely tangential to the fact of the matter.
evangambit says2014-06-03T14:15:18.7425216-05:00
"I can't see why anyone would imagine a correlation between genuinely objective (thus totally independent of that higher power) moral values and the existence and point of view of a 'higher power'. You can believe in a higher power and believe that morality is subjective, and you can not believe in any higher power and still believe that morality is objective. What, if anything, this higher power thinks/has to say on the issue of morality is only as meaningful as is the next person's thoughts or opinions on the matter. If morals are actually objective, the existence or lack thereof of *any* being or opinion is absolutely tangential to the fact of the matter." I agree with basically everything you said (my apologies for being ambiguous or poorly communicating). My question is that, if one does NOT believe in God, on what basis does on have to call their ethics 'objective'? Not that believing in God necessarily solves this, only that, if ANYONE can lay claim to an 'objective' moral system, it is an omnibenevolent deity (almost by definition of 'omnibenevolent'). I'm curious as to what/where else one might derive an objective moral system. I've heard that some people derive their ethics from the 'laws of evolution'. What other sources are there? For those people that don't "believe in any higher power and still believe that morality is objective" (and such people certainly exist), on what basis do they claim this?
Jingram994 says2014-06-04T03:20:19.5123309-05:00
"I agree with basically everything you said (my apologies for being ambiguous or poorly communicating). My question is that, if one does NOT believe in God, on what basis does on have to call their ethics 'objective'? Not that believing in God necessarily solves this, only that, if ANYONE can lay claim to an 'objective' moral system, it is an omnibenevolent deity (almost by definition of 'omnibenevolent'). I'm curious as to what/where else one might derive an objective moral system. I've heard that some people derive their ethics from the 'laws of evolution'. What other sources are there? For those people that don't "believe in any higher power and still believe that morality is objective" (and such people certainly exist), on what basis do they claim this?" Yeah, ambiguity is a mother-f**ker. My point was actually basically the same; even if one does believe in a higher power, that doesn't magically make their claims to their ethics having an objective base any more sound than anyone else's. Like I said, unless morality is necessarily related to the existence of such a being itself, then the existence or lack thereof of this being does not have anything to do with morality. Strictly speaking, but 'omnibenevolent' only means 'is maximally benevolent; this does not necessitate 'objective moral goodness/rightness', unless we also presuppose that 'benevolence' is morally good, which is an entirely separate claim. In my own opinion, morality exists in (kind of) the same area as does complex logic; we can determine what the 'right' thing to do is by logically deducing them from basic principles. The fact that the 'rules' we deduce absolutely have to make logical sense and absolutely cannot contradict each other simply helps us to work out what those 'rules' 'have' to be. Of course, I recognize that this doesn't really address the issue of why we choose those specific base principles, but then that idea has *never* really been soundly addressed. We can only pick the ones that lead to the rules that seem the best and most valid.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2014-06-04T07:10:42.5110261-05:00
@evangambit: It comes from human nature. The most basic of all morality is commiseration. From Mencius 3.6: 'When I say that all men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others, my meaning may be illustrated thus: even now-a-days, if men suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they will without exception experience a feeling of alarm and distress. They will feel so, not as a ground on which they may gain the favour of the child's parents, nor as a ground on which they may seek the praise of their neighbours and friends, nor from a dislike to the reputation of having been unmoved by such a thing.' Because of this feeling of commiseration, we derive the four basic principles of benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom/knowledge (continuing the Mencius 3.6 quote): 'From this case we may perceive that the feeling of commiseration is essential to man, that the feeling of shame and dislike is essential to man, that the feeling of modesty and complaisance is essential to man, and that the feeling of approving and disapproving is essential to man. The feeling of commiseration is the principle of benevolence. The feeling of shame and dislike is the principle of righteousness. The feeling of modesty and complaisance is the principle of propriety. The feeling of approving and disapproving is the principle of knowledge.' These essential values are part of human nature. To achieve morality, it suffices to apply these values and extend them. In doing so, we follow the Path: 'What Heaven has conferred is called The Nature; an accordance with this nature is called The Path of duty; the regulation of this path is called Instruction.' (Doctrine of the Mean) There is no higher being needed; we have moral principles in our hearts, as part of our nature, and by using them, we can cultivate our virtues and become better people.
evangambit says2014-06-04T14:11:01.0616583-05:00
And those basic assumptions (if well identified) can never be proven — that is why they're assumptions! Haha. But I guess my point was that if any -ism/-ity has claim to an 'objective moral system' it would be religions where an omniscient, omnibenevolent entity gave us these assumptions as law (as opposed to Utilitarianism and Kantianism, which are derived from assumptions made by people). This conclusion might seem a little convoluted (that it is 'objective' to believers and not to nonbelievers). Indeed, it is probably a counter productive way of dealing with the matter of 'objectivity'. I guess this is probably more than you wanted to know but this is sort the situation I'm coming from: I recently rejected Christianity but am not sure if I am atheist. While I don't believe in the physical manifestation of a higher deity, I think that 'faith' in an 'objective moral system' is important (I suppose my assumption is 'there exists a universal moral system'). So, while I don't believe in such a deity, I DO believe there is some fundamental axiom(s) from which we can derive right and wrong. What I just don't know is whether a 'true atheist' (whatever that means) has to believe morality is relative and, if so, does that make me a 'deist'? Not sure why I'm pushing my problems onto you, but if you have any thoughts let me know :p
evangambit says2014-06-04T14:18:55.2972271-05:00
@Diqiucun_Cunmin My problem with taking our assumptions as (in some sense) proven by "human nature" is that there is nothing intrinsically moral about it. Not that I think humans are inherently evil (quite the contrary, for many of the reasons you pointed to), but rather that human nature is not some universal constant, but constantly changing. Thank you very much for introducing me to Mencius; it sounds really interesting and I will do some reading!
Jingram994 says2014-06-05T05:08:10.1924782-05:00
"And those basic assumptions (if well identified) can never be proven — that is why they're assumptions! Haha. But I guess my point was that if any -ism/-ity has claim to an 'objective moral system' it would be religions where an omniscient, omnibenevolent entity gave us these assumptions as law (as opposed to Utilitarianism and Kantianism, which are derived from assumptions made by people)." You might think so, and it might hold up better to sound review if the actual moral system itself wasn't so inherently tied to the being itself. What Kant himself may personally think of a specific situation, and how he might feel or choose to act, isn't really all that relevant to how someone following his moral system should act, for example. If the 'moral system' is purely justified based on the thoughts, opinions or 'nature' of one specific being, it seems a lot harder to accept that it is 'objective' and actually 'justified' than does one that is based off of axioms that apply to real situations, and which consistently hold up to logical analysis and can't even conceptually change on a whim. "This conclusion might seem a little convoluted (that it is 'objective' to believers and not to nonbelievers). Indeed, it is probably a counter productive way of dealing with the matter of 'objectivity'." Yeah, that does seem fairly convoluted. To be honest, that's seems to me to be more likely because it *is* just convoluted and somewhat irrational than because it's actually a really complex idea that does still work. "I guess this is probably more than you wanted to know but this is sort the situation I'm coming from: I recently rejected Christianity but am not sure if I am atheist. While I don't believe in the physical manifestation of a higher deity, I think that 'faith' in an 'objective moral system' is important (I suppose my assumption is 'there exists a universal moral system'). So, while I don't believe in such a deity, I DO believe there is some fundamental axiom(s) from which we can derive right and wrong. What I just don't know is whether a 'true atheist' (whatever that means) has to believe morality is relative and, if so, does that make me a 'deist'?" Guh? What happened? I don't really know how to respond to that. I suppose I can help with definitions, at least. A theist is someone who believes in a supernatural higher power, and generally that this being is actually a present, active force within the actual world. This may or may not include belief in overtly supernatural explanations for various aspects of the world or things within it (a theist could believe in YEC, for example, while a deist would not, because that violates the belief that the higher power doesn't explicitly and directly act within the universe). A deist is someone who also believes in a higher power, but that this being is not generally a present or active force within the world, and is a subset of theism. This can include belief in supernatural explanations for some things in the world, but usually only in the sense that known natural processes are 'guided' by this higher power rather than it directly doing sh*t. This probably also includes belief in a supernatural explanation for the origins of the universe itself. An atheist is simply anyone who does not have any belief in a supernatural higher power, and strictly speaking is really only exactly what it sounds like; lack of theistic belief as a whole. You can still believe is supernatural events or explanations if you are an atheist, just not in a supernatural 'higher power' as such. The broad issue of morality, and the objectivity or subjectivity of such, isn't really related to the issue of theism at all. Any given atheist is of course capable of believing morality is relative, or subjective, objective, absolute or nonexistent, but this applies to everyone regardless of theistic belief. The belief that any particular position on morality is inherently related to theistic belief is not true. "Not sure why I'm pushing my problems onto you, but if you have any thoughts let me know :p" Meh. It's fine; asking questions and telling people things is okay. Mostly.
etherealmuse says2014-06-12T17:32:09.2885936-05:00
To rephrase: You don't need God to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong then you lack empathy, not God.
Sumguy6d9 says2014-07-09T19:08:50.4139360-05:00
No you choose your own meaning
The_Lion_Of_Alexander says2014-08-04T20:32:09.3561856-05:00
There is a reason we love life and hate death
cadley says2014-09-05T22:14:28.3518326-05:00
If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in the bible, and without the bible there is no right and wrong.
Fenderchic says2014-09-07T14:13:23.9856059-05:00
Nah
Momergil says2014-09-07T20:59:37.4412575-05:00
For those in the comments section (bladerunner060, Mikal, etc.) I recommend William Lane Craig's commentaries about Eutyprho Dilemma and the other objections you made; he already answered them showing why such counter-arguments don't work.
bladerunner060 says2014-09-07T22:39:43.5925381-05:00
@Momergil: WLC is a dishonest hack, so I'm not particularly inclined to read more from him--I've read plenty, and found it to be lacking. But that's not intended as an attack on you--thank you for the response, I just have already read most of his objections and find them crap.
Student4Life1975 says2014-09-25T17:35:32.9551171-05:00
No, we have the ability to determine these things based on the suffering they cause other people. Its Simple and in no way in need of anything other than our own consensus on things.
Feroste says2014-10-11T21:31:29.4784726-05:00
This is a flawed question because it means you have to believe that their are Objective morals of which there are none. Objective morality is a logical fallacy constituted by the rules of debate. Even if god created your morals they are still subject (subjective) to what god believes to be right and wrong. "Naturalistic fallacy. This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact alone. This is invalid because no matter how many statements of fact you assemble, any logical inference from them will be another statement of fact, not a statement of value. If you wish to reach conclusions about values, then you must include amongst your assumptions (or axioms, or premises) a statement of value." "/"This medicine will prevent you from dying" immediately leads to the conclusion, "You should take this medicine." But this reasoning is invalid, because the former statement is a statement of fact, while the latter is a statement of value. To reach the conclusion that you ought to take the medicine, you would need at least one more premise: "You ought to try to preserve your life whenever possible."\" This logical fallacy of there being any objective morals derives from the appeal to nature fallacy which I think you are trying to argue on human instinctual ground. First, you must define what natural is or what are basic human instincts? Then, you must also argue that unnatural is the same as wrong.
DiskoPickle says2014-10-12T20:02:37.4972423-05:00
Simple thought experiment: Do you think it's OK for someone to murder you? Do you think that a significant number of sane people in the world think it's OK for them to be murdered? If you've answered 'No' those questions, then you've established that at least one objective moral value exists in the universe without the need to appeal to magic or superstition. This is a value which transcends the individual and is held by all but the insane. Case closed.
thisnameasused says2014-11-09T16:48:32.9355191-06:00
There is no good deed done by a theist that cannot be achieved through purely secular means. I think it's an absurd notion to think one gets their sense of morality or the ability to choose between right and wrong, in a general consensus sense, from a all-powerful, cosmic creator for which no tangible evidence exists for. Furthermore, I think any theist is being intellectually dishonest or moronic if they hold that view. You just have to look at the statistics regarding sexual disease transmission, rape, murder and abortion rates, in America, as well as the academic ability of students regarding maths and science, when compared to the rest of the world, and you can see that something isn't right morality wise there in relation to religiosity. General well-being and health also come into this big time - it becomes very apparent that theism is generally a massive hindrance and causes a lot of harm. If moral values come from god, how do we account for America in the sense previously described??
ChildofHorus says2014-11-11T18:10:13.0439893-06:00
If a person needs the fear of hell to keep them from doing something that they know is wrong then that right there should tell something is amiss. There is no need for a god for mankind to do moral good.
ShadowHawk555 says2014-12-03T12:08:49.7188114-06:00
Morals as in moral compass your conscience there's no reason for that to exist scientifiacaly
Jingram994 says2014-12-03T18:50:28.3285236-06:00
Of course there is; group behavior. Bonding instincts. Emotions. 'Moral compasses' (which only govern how you *feel* about situations that arguably have moral components, and thus aren't relevant to morality) are a component/offshoot of those things. If 'there (was) no reason for that to exist scientifiacaly', then it just wouldn't exist. Animals don't develop traits just because.
ShadowHawk555 says2014-12-03T19:48:30.0278682-06:00
Wouldn't it be more beneficial to the species if our conscience told us raping woman was okay because it increases the population? There's no reason why we should have a conscience that is this developed.
marthab24 says2014-12-15T09:12:56.7158747-06:00
Faith is something you feel in your heart, when you do the right thing morally, you feel it, you know its the right thing, that is God coming into your heart to affirm that, I believe that is what faith is, a belief you know in your heart to be true.
marthab24 says2014-12-15T09:14:09.2473999-06:00
When you do the right thing morally, you feel it, you know its the right thing, that is God coming into your heart to affirm that, I believe that is what faith is, a belief you know in your heart to be true.
PhoenixFlyer says2015-01-11T21:36:39.6409769-06:00
Of course not. GOD gave us free will and the ability to think for ourselves.
Clockwork0 says2015-01-30T15:29:45.6092986-06:00
I don't need someone to tell me what to believe. I have a brain to make my own judgements. Therefore, a God is not needed.
mystery_man43 says2015-03-14T11:45:52.0087554-05:00
Yes. God Bless America! Join The Mystery_Man (Or Mystery Man) Movement! God Bless Our Police Officers, Our Veterans, And Anybody And Everybody Who Keeps Our Blessed Nation Safe. Our Motto. Clear And Simple. God Bless America!
debate_power says2015-03-14T15:12:13.2660842-05:00
The real "mystery man" is surely God. How he manages to defy laws of physics is a sure mystery.
mystery_man43 says2015-03-14T15:19:29.4831893-05:00
I Hope You Don't Mean That You Do Not Believe In God.
debate_power says2015-03-14T15:21:35.2436241-05:00
What makes you think I do not?
mystery_man43 says2015-03-14T15:24:09.7862899-05:00
I Did Not Read Your Post Early In The Comment Section. I Sincerely Apologize. I Will Not Be On Much Longer. Goodbye For Now.
mystery_man43 says2015-03-14T15:25:41.0836430-05:00
Oops. I Just Read Your Profile Comment. Well, I Have Been Answered.
debate_power says2015-03-14T16:02:35.4973133-05:00
Okay. That Is Good To Know.
DaSqueaky says2015-03-20T08:33:04.5472837-05:00
Let me just say a quote here from one of my favorite comedians. This is his point of view if he were god. "You shouldn't abstain from rape just 'cause you think that I want you to. You shouldn't rape 'cause rape is a f@#$%^ up thing to do." Plus I'm pretty durn sure Society decides the morals of the people who live in it.
MrProgressive says2015-04-03T21:59:10.1938599-05:00
Evolutionary psychology is a field of science that can explain "morals" without God. Taking the concept of natural selection, humans who displayed traits of altruism and cooperation have a better chance of survival because they would work as a group to accomplish their goals. Decent examples of e.P. Are tribalism and loyalty. This is the in-group-out-group mentality. Its us versus them. This can be expressed as helping a family member instead of helping a stranger. Not only in family, tribalism can be found in sports fans and people defending their political party. However, this isn't a concrete field. There isn't any strong evidence from it, just observations of humans today and reasoning made of prehistoric humans.
Chuckles1234 says2015-04-04T12:30:51.1234704-05:00
The right temporal-parietal junction is the source of morality in humans. Not a god.
AlphaTBITW says2015-04-10T10:47:33.8024821-05:00
People here are thinking that objective morals are just when people are good all the time....Which is wrong. Or that one must believe in God to be good....Which is wrong. The question is do you need a God for objective moral values to exist. We need God to exist for there to be objective moral values.
B0HICA says2015-04-18T19:31:54.7944225-05:00
Objective is the opposite of subjective. If our morals are subjective, then one can claim that anything is moral. Objective morality can be summed up in eleven words. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is a commandment that Jesus Himself gave us. So yes. God is the author of objective morality.
Jingram994 says2015-04-19T03:16:09.4857201-05:00
Can you demonstrate that God, or more specifically your conception of him, is the source of that statement? Or show how it's necessarily more moral than the statement 'Do whatever you want'? What you've just stated is a non-sequiter. Merely saying something does not make it true. And simply telling us 'God said this, so it's moral' is a tautology. It doesn't matter who said it, it matters what the content of the statement is.
gemtea says2015-04-26T14:52:40.6906140-05:00
The photo is Sam Harris I believe. I'd use his moral values and ethics before anything Biblical. Sam is the man. I believe people are not born "in sin" but are for the most part good. Love, compassion and positive reinforcement will do more good than any list of moral laws anyone can come up with. Of course the question is, what is good or moral. Nothing is good nor bad. One must make a judgement before it's anything. Wasn't it Shakespeare that said something like nothing is good nor bad, it's thinking that makes it so. Most Biblical commandments cause ugly judgements against our fellow man. Most of what Jesus and Buddha say are spiritually healthy. Meditation is the way to a better way of life.
gemtea says2015-04-26T14:54:46.6622290-05:00
The photo is Sam Harris I believe. I'd use his moral values and ethics before anything Biblical. Sam is the man. I believe people are not born "in sin" but are for the most part good. Love, compassion and positive reinforcement will do more good than any list of moral laws anyone can come up with. Of course the question is, what is good or moral. Nothing is good nor bad. One must make a judgement before it's anything. Wasn't it Shakespeare that said something like nothing is good nor bad, it's thinking that makes it so. Most Biblical commandments cause ugly judgements against our fellow man. Most of what Jesus and Buddha say are spiritually healthy. Meditation is the way to a better way of life. So I vote no
Bianco215 says2015-05-15T10:48:08.2350576-05:00
Anyone who says yes is dumb, and this is coming from an agnostic. I'm assuming none of you actually know what "objective" means. No, there are no objective morals. Yes, a god is necessary to dictate an objective morality.
deadmanramsey says2015-06-22T02:45:36.0344911-05:00
People need to answer this question on how it was posed. If morals are objective then is God necessary? It is granted that morals are objective in the question, so don't try and refute the statement, refute the conclusion. I think the answer is very much "yes". If people are the source of morals, then isn't that by definition "subjective"? If it's based on people who is to say which person is right and wrong? There needs to be a standard independent and external to persons in order for it to be objective. God being that standard as the creator of mankind and the one who gives life it's meaning and purpose would act as a legitimate foundation of objective moral values and duties. To me the answer is pretty obvious.
REDtrojan says2015-09-04T22:49:46.3754844Z
If God didn't exists we wouldn't even be able to have this conversation. That's like saying what if we took away 1 from 1+1... Could we still make it to equal 2 anyway? Lol
ericscouter75163 says2015-10-23T03:13:07.6452073Z
We use God to back morals so without God morals would vanish.
ericscouter75163 says2015-10-23T03:15:56.5808560Z
First, we use God to back morals so without God morals would vanish. Second, man did not know right from wrong until God cursed man with that knowledge thus creating morals.
ericscouter75163 says2015-10-23T03:16:49.3254703Z
First, we use God to back morals so without God morals would vanish. Second, man did not know right from wrong until God cursed man with that knowledge thus creating morals.
Confussoul says2015-10-25T21:31:33.4195391Z
Our conscience has nothing to do with our religious beliefs.
Confussoul says2015-10-25T21:32:21.9383081Z
Our conscience has nothing to do with our religious beliefs.
areeder5011 says2015-11-08T06:41:43.1189469Z
I vote yes, just to piss atheists off because they are so damn angry about everything.
Oneseedykiwi says2015-11-10T03:20:45.4345794Z
Theres nothing I hate more than people that think they know everything about the bible, and talk like they are disproving it, but are actually making zero sense. (bladerunner060)
Oneseedykiwi says2015-11-10T03:21:59.4112020Z
Theres nothing I hate more than people that think they know everything about the bible, and talk like they are disproving it, but are actually making zero sense. (bladerunner060)
SpreadingTruth says2016-02-18T02:10:01.7900463Z
I guess you don't need God, but where else do you get morals? Parents? They got theirs from their parents who got them from farther down the road, but far down the road, a parent believed in God. So technically using the transitive property, you got your morals from God. Does that make sense?
mxhsin says2016-04-14T01:34:51.0354932Z
No of course not
Lorch317 says2016-06-18T15:56:55.7836003Z
We need God for OBJECTIVE morals that transcend personal interpretation. However, we don't need god for SUBJECTIVE morals, which seem to be the kind of morals present in today's society. However, I must answer the question.
Lorch317 says2016-06-18T15:58:28.1985927Z
We need God for OBJECTIVE morals (but not subjective morals, which seem to actually exist).
bamiller43 says2016-06-24T20:25:58.9805510Z
No. Objective morality does not exist. What i believe is morally wrong may be everyday life for some people
asaplords says2016-08-12T19:15:10.4996835Z
No, a person can formulate their own thoughts and morals without the bbeliefy of a deity that is God or a Supreme Being.
XavierDeFord says2016-12-06T16:47:05.3113408Z
I'm not religious myself but I have seen that anyone who is dedicated to their religion (Christianity to be specific) wether man women black or white are generally speaking better behaved, morals are a big thing, they have more respect for others and yes you can argue sayng not all religios people are good, but the truth is a many are.
XavierDeFord says2016-12-06T16:48:06.9161357Z
I'm not religious myself but I have seen that anyone who is dedicated to their religion (Christianity to be specific) wether man women black or white are generally speaking better behaved, morals are a big thing, they have more respect for others and yes you can argue sayng not all religios people are good, but the truth is a many are.
XavierDeFord says2016-12-06T16:49:06.6333185Z
I'm not religious myself but I have seen that anyone who is dedicated to their religion (Christianity to be specific) wether man women black or white are generally speaking better behaved, morals are a big thing, they have more respect for others and yes you can argue sayng not all religios people are good, but the truth is a many are. Their religion though a lot of the time strict, helps them with their rules though not all are particularly good.
XavierDeFord says2016-12-06T16:50:34.4085900Z
I'm not religious myself but I have seen that anyone who is dedicated to their religion (Christianity to be specific) wether man women black or white are generally speaking better behaved, morals are a big thing, they have more respect for others and yes you can argue sayng not all religios people are good, but the truth is a many are. Their religion though a lot of the time strict, helps them with their rules though not all are particularly good.
XavierDeFord says2016-12-06T16:51:49.8506736Z
I'm not religious myself but I have seen that anyone who is dedicated to their religion (Christianity to be specific) wether man women black or white are generally speaking better behaved, morals are a big thing, they have more respect for others and yes you can argue sayng not all religios people are good, but the truth is a many are. Their religion though a lot of the time strict, helps them with their rules though not all are particularly good. But in a way enforces it makes people of those religions feel more of a need to follow those rules
Alkora says2016-12-19T17:35:07.9873014Z
I'm just gonna quote Albert Einstein. "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." It's not really an argument but, I thought it was a cool quote.
Alkora says2016-12-19T17:36:18.2414003Z
I'm just gonna quote Albert Einstein. "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." It's not really an argument but, I thought it was a cool quote.
Alkora says2016-12-19T17:37:12.0617453Z
I'm just gonna quote Albert Einstein. "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." It's not really an argument but, I thought it was a cool quote.
Bork says2017-01-27T18:58:35.4448216Z
In saying that god is the sole reason as to why people have morals is ridiculous. I, for one, don't believe in god and if I did I would sure as hell think that he's not the only reason I'm not off stealing, raping, and being a violent individual. Humans do things that other people find as good things to do, I think that over time we as a species figured out that by being destructive would mean that it would slow the process of humans evolving into something better (the intelligent of us anyway). It seems as though religion has done quite a toll on morals as it is. If anything, it deprives people of good moral values.
Jessieb says2017-02-11T19:14:55.0106090Z
YES. The idea of God is entirely subjective to someones upbringing/culture and there are so many people in the past and people alive today who claim they follow God, yet do so many destructive and hurtful things to those who do not believe in their version of God. No one NEEDS a GOD, what they need is a moral compass to guide them and that is called living by the Golden Rule. People who are bad to others simply cannot grasp the true meaning of "treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself" Even that idea is also as subjective as the idea of God is...Yet, most Humans are born with an innate understanding of the golden rule and need a way to explain it, thus humans inventing Gods. The ten commandments are based off of the golden rule as are so many teachings in the Bible and other religious texts. Still, living by God and/or the golden rule is only effective if the Humans believing in it are being morally objective. We all want to be treated fairly by others and some Gods are simply not fair, but the golden rule could be.
Jessieb says2017-02-11T19:16:20.0306090Z
YES. The idea of God is entirely subjective to someones upbringing/culture and there are so many people in the past and people alive today who claim they follow God, yet do so many destructive and hurtful things to those who do not believe in their version of God. No one NEEDS a GOD, what they need is a moral compass to guide them and that is called living by the Golden Rule. People who are bad to others simply cannot grasp the true meaning of "treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself" Even that idea is also as subjective as the idea of God is...Yet, most Humans are born with an innate understanding of the golden rule and need a way to explain it, thus humans inventing Gods. The ten commandments are based off of the golden rule as are so many teachings in the Bible and other religious texts. Still, living by God and/or the golden rule is only effective if the Humans believing in it are being morally objective. We all want to be treated fairly by others and some Gods are simply not fair, but the golden rule could be.
Ahumanperson says2017-07-20T15:18:08.0845307Z
My morality comes from myself. You do not need to be told that murder is wrong. You can't prove the validity of the bible or the quran in this case, as neither have anything to tell you on morality. For a matter of fact, both books say things which would be looked down upon, such as how to own and beat a slave! These religious books are the exact opposite of what people today would call moral. Objective morality doesn't exist, because there is ALWAYS a grey area of sorts. Why would you ever listen to a non-human being? Aren't you just subjugating your free will? Doesn't God already know everything you will ever do, and why you do it? Hasn't it already determined every action that will ever be made? Why would a deity like that ever need to tell you what to do? Because it either doesn't exist, BECAUSE IT'S A BOOK, or it's not omniscient, and by logic, I can say that God is not omnipotent. So why call it God?
Ahumanperson says2017-07-20T15:18:54.4804177Z
My morality comes from myself. You do not need to be told that murder is wrong. You can't prove the validity of the bible or the quran in this case, as neither have anything to tell you on morality. For a matter of fact, both books say things which would be looked down upon, such as how to own and beat a slave! These religious books are the exact opposite of what people today would call moral. Objective morality doesn't exist, because there is ALWAYS a grey area of sorts. Why would you ever listen to a non-human being? Aren't you just subjugating your free will? Doesn't God already know everything you will ever do, and why you do it? Hasn't it already determined every action that will ever be made? Why would a deity like that ever need to tell you what to do? Because it either doesn't exist, BECAUSE IT'S A BOOK, or it's not omniscient, and by logic, I can say that God is not omnipotent. So why call it God?
Accipiter says2017-08-19T14:11:12.2561519Z
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/17/religious-more-moral-atheists_n_5822492.html?utm_hp_ref=ethics
Accipiter says2017-08-19T14:11:55.0316261Z
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/17/religious-more-moral-atheists_n_5822492.html?utm_hp_ref=ethics
Accipiter says2017-08-19T14:22:00.3935066Z
The most immoral people I know all believe in the bible. Belief in god does not make people more moral. Http://www.Huffingtonpost.Com/2014/09/17/religious-more-moral-atheists_n_5822492.Html?Utm_hp_ref=ethics
Accipiter says2017-08-19T14:23:04.4943175Z
The most immoral people I know all believe in the bible. Belief in god does not make people more moral. Http://www.Huffingtonpost.Com/2014/09/17/religious-more-moral-atheists_n_5822492.Html?Utm_hp_ref=ethics
Always_Opinionated says2017-09-18T19:32:00.7449164Z
Where did you get your "morals"? Your parents? Where did they get them? If you look back, it starts with God. Everyone know about the Ten Commandments. God gave them.
JoeOrsak says2017-12-04T17:13:33.8719845Z
@Bladerunner060 "Those voting for the necessity of God for objective moral values should remember that if God created them, they're subjective to God. So either he's appealing to a truly objective concept, in which case he's unnecessary, or it's no different than following any other individual's morality in terms of objectivity." That would be an incorrect conclusion. God IS the embodiment of truth. He is not appealing to something outside of himself. He simply is. As such, objective truth exists IN him and subjective truth exists apart from him.
JoeOrsak says2017-12-04T17:14:42.4968244Z
@Bladerunner060 "Those voting for the necessity of God for objective moral values should remember that if God created them, they're subjective to God. So either he's appealing to a truly objective concept, in which case he's unnecessary, or it's no different than following any other individual's morality in terms of objectivity." That would be an incorrect conclusion. God IS the embodiment of truth. He is not appealing to something outside of himself. He simply is. As such, objective truth exists IN him and subjective truth exists apart from him.
JoeOrsak says2017-12-04T17:27:34.3741723Z
@Bladerunner060 "Those voting for the necessity of God for objective moral values should remember that if God created them, they're subjective to God. So either he's appealing to a truly objective concept, in which case he's unnecessary, or it's no different than following any other individual's morality in terms of objectivity." That would be an incorrect conclusion. God IS the embodiment of truth. He is not appealing to something outside of himself. He simply is. As such, objective truth exists IN him and subjective truth exists apart from him.
ThinkingThing25 says2018-06-15T19:23:15.2072886Z
Although God is "a" source of objective morals, he is not necessary. This can be proven with all our non-believing friends. They have good morals, some have better morals than some believers.
fallenness says2019-08-25T04:09:40.6809307Z
When's the last time you heard on the news, "agnostic front storms atheist stronghold, Hundreds killed" or "atheists cut off heads in name of 'nobody'"? Atheists, Despite being the least trusted group in America, Commit less crime, Are on average better educated, Are equally or more likely to donate to charity, And I general show none of the signs that without God or hope of everlasting punishment / reward, People will have no reason not to run amok, As the religionists seem to fear so much. Personally, I'd be more afraid of the guy that says you need good to have morality. . . To me that says that he really wants to do all sorts of immoral things, But just doesn't think he can get away with them.
fallenness says2019-08-25T04:09:59.5413307Z
When's the last time you heard on the news, "agnostic front storms atheist stronghold, Hundreds killed" or "atheists cut off heads in name of 'nobody'"? Atheists, Despite being the least trusted group in America, Commit less crime, Are on average better educated, Are equally or more likely to donate to charity, And I general show none of the signs that without God or hope of everlasting punishment / reward, People will have no reason not to run amok, As the religionists seem to fear so much. Personally, I'd be more afraid of the guy that says you need good to have morality. . . To me that says that he really wants to do all sorts of immoral things, But just doesn't think he can get away with them.
fallenness says2019-08-25T04:10:41.4741307Z
When's the last time you heard on the news, "agnostic front storms atheist stronghold, Hundreds killed" or "atheists cut off heads in name of 'nobody'"? Atheists, Despite being the least trusted group in America, Commit less crime, Are on average better educated, Are equally or more likely to donate to charity, And I general show none of the signs that without God or hope of everlasting punishment / reward, People will have no reason not to run amok, As the religionists seem to fear so much. Personally, I'd be more afraid of the guy that says you need god to have morality. . . To me that says that he really wants to do all sorts of immoral things, But just doesn't think he can get away with them.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.