Does morality exist?

[Syntax]

Of course, morality needn’t be objective to be real.

If the term “morality” is going to have any universal applicability to all individuals, it has to be objective. “Subjective morality” doesn’t make any sense; you can hold one or the other, but not both. You might be a cultural or individual relativist with respect to “moral” claims, but they no longer possess the universally binding aspect on all individuals that moral claims are thought to have when we say such things as “torturing babies is wrong.” When we say this, we mean that “‘thou shalt not torture babies’ is to be universally binding all people.”

 

[Leela]

I would like to agree with you, Leela, but I cannot because axioms presuppose the law of non-contradiction!

My point is that someone could reject the law of noncontradiction. If they did we would say, okay, so you are irrational. Likewise, someone could deny that human life is precious. Then we would say, okay, so you are ammoral.

The is no reason to think that morality is less real or less grounded than reason. Ender seems to think that an atheist is forced into the position of being ammoral. Atheist is not forced to be ammoral any more than she is forced to be an irrational person.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Hi all,

If atheists do not see morality as conforming to a divinely created Moral Law and can’t then measure moral progress based on how we’ve progressed as a society toward agreement with this Law, how could an atheist possibly measure moral progress?

Well, since you’ve asked, I’ll tell you!

Our moral concerns are not about conformity to such a Law but rather about the concerns we have for other human beings. Then moral progress is for us a matter of wider and wider sympathy. We can progress by better understanding people’s needs and by taking more people’s needs into account than we did before.

Ender doesn’t see atheism and morality as compatible: “If there is no God, then why would we need to be concerned for others, why wouldn’t we be running around raping and pillaging and stealing one another’s pornography?” The simple answer for most people is, “because we are not sociopaths.” People like that exist, of course, but psychology has given us an idea of what this pathology is and how this pathology comes about. A sociopath’s self-conception contains no relations to others, either due to genetics or because of absent or abusive parents or some combination of genetics and upbringing. The sociopath is not a person who has given up on certain ideas about ultimate reality, but is a person who never developed trust for loving parents in early childhood. Children do not grow up to be sociopaths because they lacked the right metaphysical foundation, but rather because they lacked loving homes.

Psychologists tell us what we parents need to do if want our children to develop morally. Instead of telling our children that they will be punished for hurting others–that their behavior towards others has consequences only for themselves, we should rather ask them, “how do you think you would feel if someone did the same thing to you?” We should convince them that we need to be concerned about hurting others because it has consquences for others. It is the power of human imagination to put ourselves in another’s shoes that will help us progess morally. Psychologists tell us that teaching children only about the threat of personal consequences for their behavior toward others results in sociopaths. Teaching our children to do what a Church commands out of fear of personal punishment by eternal damnation, would be one way of doing just that. That is the sort of moral teaching that results in sociopaths, people concerned only for their own well-being or their own souls rather than people with a capacity for empathy for other human beings. Hell keeps people in line just like our legal system but it doesn’t make them more moral.

If we really were sociopaths, then we would indeed have no good answer to the question of “why aren’t we all thieves and murders and rapists,” but thank goodness we are not sociopaths. Our self-conceptions do include relations to others. Caring for those close to us comes naturally to us. We love at least some others as we love ourselves–not “like we love ourselves” but “as ourselves” in that some others literally are ourselves to some degree. The more we can expand and deepen this web of relations that we identify as part of ourselves, the more morally developed we are. We don’t need to think of ourselves as sociopaths that need to be restrained, but rather humans concerned with relating to other humans who need to be nurtured, especially when we are young, in order to develop the trust in other humans that makes progressive expansion and deepening of this web of relations possible.

Perhaps this view of acculturation as restraining sociopaths rather than nurturing human beings explains why the United States which is especially religious among the developed world also has the highest incarceration rate. Approximately in every 32 Americans are either in jail on parole or on probation at any given time.

The difference between liberal pragmatism and conservative orthodoxy when seen from the liberal perspective is that morality is not so much about what we should forbid, but who we should open ourselves up to and how we can better meet their needs. The movie fable Chocolat starring Juliette Binoche and Johnny Depp illustrates the difference in these ethics when the young priest near the end of the movie tells his pious congregation:

“I think we can’t go around measuring our goodness by what we don’t do - by
what we deny ourselves, what we resist and who we exclude. I think we’ve got to
measure goodness by what we embrace, what we create and who we include.”

Best,
Leela

 

[Mijoy2]

If the term “morality” is going to have any universal applicability to all individuals, it has to be objective. “Subjective morality” doesn’t make any sense; you can hold one or the other, but not both. You might be a cultural or individual relativist with respect to “moral” claims, but they no longer possess the universally binding aspect on all individuals that moral claims are thought to have when we say such things as “torturing babies is wrong.” When we say this, we mean that “‘thou shalt not torture babies’ is to be universally binding all people.”

"If the term “morality” is going to have any universal applicability to all individuals, it has to be objective. "

I’d love to believe this statement is absolutely true. I’d love to believe this because believing this seems to the foundation of our faith. “what is truth” said Pilot?

But who is to say that in all circumstances this needs to be objective? Can it not be that there is in fact a gray area? A grey area where it is clear that tortuing babies is wrong, but a 70 year old married couple who has been married for 50 years and touch each other in the shower, well this might just be a bit in the gray area (i.e. see many of the threads in the Morality forum, many theologians believe this is a ticket to hell).

I used to believe all truth was objective. I am now beginning to believe that some issues may in fact lay outside a concrete dogma of right and wrong and may simply benign. Are we getting too dogmatic on every physical/spiritual issue which makes up our beings?

I am beginnign to think that the pragmatic and responsible way is to be relativistic. And the unrealistic way is to believe we (humans) can disect every issue to a point where we can obstinantly declare it to be right or wrong.

How pompous of us.

What do you think? My internal jury is still out on this issue.

 

[Zerilos]

If the term “morality” is going to have any universal applicability to all individuals, it has to be objective. “Subjective morality” doesn’t make any sense; you can hold one or the other, but not both. You might be a cultural or individual relativist with respect to “moral” claims, but they no longer possess the universally binding aspect on all individuals that moral claims are thought to have when we say such things as “torturing babies is wrong.” When we say this, we mean that “‘thou shalt not torture babies’ is to be universally binding all people.”

Certainly there are things almost universally agreed upon, but in that sense it is only objectively a part of our common identity as a species. Torturing a baby is an act where there really aren’t any possible justifications…there’s few things (if any) that one can accomplish by torturing a baby that one could not also accomplish without torturing a baby. Most situations are not so black and white. Let’s take shooting a man in the head with a gun for instance. In general we can say this is a bad thing; but allow me to give you three situations where the same act results in separate judgments.

Scenario A: I walk into a local mall; see a man in the food court; pull out a gun; shoot him in the head just to watch a man die. In this scenario we would all agree that this was wrong…really wrong in fact. My action possessed no justification outside of fulfilling my perverse pleasure. We can all agree that I am a bad person and deserve to be locked up.

Scenario B: I walk into a local mall; a man grabs a womans purse and runs for the door; the woman cries out for help; I shoot man in head. In this scenario, the verdict is a bit more hazy. My actions were arguably justified by the theft. Had I not have shot, he would have escaped out the door with the womans purse; however, was her purse worth taking the thief’s life? Many people will come to very different conclusions about my actions on this occasion. Some will view me a hero, others a villain.

Scenario C: I walk into a local mall; I see a man holding a knife to a child’s throat; the man announces that in 10 seconds he will kill the girl; the man starts counting; I shoot man in the head; girl survives shaken but unharmed. In this scenario, the same act nets a different verdict. This time I am universally viewed as a hero; in fact it could be argued that it would have been immoral not to have shot the man.

Again, same action, three separate verdicts. Morality is dependent upon the circumstances as much as anything else. The consequences of my actions are the basis for how I’ll be judged. Sure, we can come up with a list of acts that are always wrong, but that’s because there is no potential outcome that could possibly justify those particular actions. Ultimately, objective morality is either a tautology (I.e. rape is wrong because rape is wrong) or insufficient (I.e. god said not to do it so don’t do it).

I guess I’m saying that there are no objective morals even if a god exists who ordered us to obey his commands. Merely being a position of authority does not mean that you have the best interest of your subjects at heart. If a god exists, he may have the ability to insist upon our subservience, but that does not mean that his commands are made for our benefit. One can possess legal authority via physical intimidation, but true moral authority lies behind the intent of its origin. This god you suggest invented morality is the same god who invented tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, famines, vicious animal attacks and etc; not exactly the resume of a individual who is concerned about our well being. Either rape is evil because we say it is or because god says it is, either is subjective to the will of the originator. The best morality would be one that came from those who personally stand to gain and lose as a result of its enforcement as it will most likely be the best reflection of the desires of those whose behavior it serves to modify. Again, even if morality is objectively based (rape is wrong because rape is wrong) it would still be dependent upon us to figure this out. We would still be operating under an assumption that we know what is moral and immoral whether it was true or not. I will say this, convincing a person that should they not obey you commands that they burn in hell forever means that they will probably do what you ask, and what they are asked to do is where the trouble usually starts. If morality means nothing more than doing what one is told, then our morality has been kidnapped by a small and often unscrupulous bunch.

 

[Syntax]

huh? You lost me here.

]"If the term “morality” is going to have any universal applicability to all individuals, it has to be objective. "

I’d love to believe this statement is absolutely true. I’d love to believe this because believing this seems to the foundation of our faith. “what is truth” said Pilot?

"I used to believe all truth was objective. I am now beginning to believe that some issues may in fact lay outside a concrete dogma of right and wrong and may simply benign. Are we getting too dogmatic on every physical/spiritual issue which makes up our beings?

I am beginnign to think that the pragmatic and responsible way is to be relativistic.

And the unrealistic way is to believe we (humans) can disect every issue to a point where we can obstinantly declare it to be right or wrong.

How pompous of us.

Not all moral principles are absolute, even though they are universally binding on all individuals. In other words, they can be overridden by other moral principles, and it is not always clear which moral principle should hold supreme. But wisdom will often help us decide which course of action to take when we are caught in moral dilemmas, even though the correct answer is not so clear. So, although some circumstances may make it harder to determine which course of action we should take, this ought not to make us think everything is therefore relative–that’s a bad conclusion to draw.

Just beware, if morality doesn’t exist and everything is relative, that means you are also committed to the view that everything is permissible, no matter how heinous the crime. Are you prepared to believe that?

 

[Syntax]

Certainly there are things almost universally agreed upon, but in that sense it is only objectively a part of our common identity as a species. Torturing a baby is an act where there really aren’t any possible justifications…there’s few things (if any) that one can accomplish by torturing a baby that one could not also accomplish without torturing a baby. Most situations are not so black and white. Let’s take shooting a man in the head with a gun for instance. In general we can say this is a bad thing; but allow me to give you three situations where the same act results in separate judgments.

No, just because we face difficulties on whether or not this or that principle holds in a given context does not entail objective morality doesn’t exist…This is invalid. Moral principles are not absolute, they can be overridden by other moral principles depending on contexts and circumstances. Don’t confuse moral absolutism which says “moral principle X holds unconditionally” with moral objectivity which says “moral principle X holds universally for all people.”

Knowing how to determine the correct outcome is what we call “wisdom.” The funny thing is this: in all three scenarios you provide, most people would agree on the correct thing to do in each given circumstance. So far from being evidence against moral objectivity, your examples support it. So in the case where someone saves another innocent life by having to kill the bad guy, the moral principle of “Save innocent lives” overrides the moral principle “Thou shalt not kill.”

 

[Zerilos]

Just beware, if morality doesn’t exist and everything is relative, that means you are also committed to the view that everything is permissible, no matter how heinous the crime. Are you prepared to believe that?

And the award for false dichotomy of the year goes to…Syntax. The reality of subjectivity does not necessitate the absence of enforceable standards. A community can develop it’s own standards and enforce them to the best of it’s ability. Ideally, such standards will be a reflection of that communities interests and desires as a whole. As we are all human, most communities will have many things in common when developing their standards for behavior (most humans wish to avoid being murdered; ergo murder is consistently illegal from region to region).

 

[Syntax]

And the award for false dichotomy of the year goes to…Syntax. The reality of subjectivity does not necessitate the absence of enforceable standards. A community can develop it’s own standards and enforce them to the best of it’s ability.

This is not a false dichotomy. “Permissibility” logically falls right out of “moral wrong doesn’t exist” if morality is not universally binding on all people. If moral principle X does not hold for all people, then it is permissible for anyone to violate the principle. This is analytically true by definition.

You are confusing terms. Enforcibility is an external sanction that ensures laws are followed. It has nothing to do with whether this or that action is morally permissible or impermissible. An act can still be permissible even though you’re punished for it. Likewise, an act can be impermissible even if no one exists to make sure you follow the moral principle dictating against it.

 

[Leela]

Certainly there are things almost universally agreed upon, but in that sense it is only objectively a part of our common identity as a species. Torturing a baby is an act where there really aren’t any possible justifications…there’s few things (if any) that one can accomplish by torturing a baby that one could not also accomplish without torturing a baby. Most situations are not so black and white. Let’s take shooting a man in the head with a gun for instance. In general we can say this is a bad thing; but allow me to give you three situations where the same act results in separate judgments.

Scenario A: I walk into a local mall; see a man in the food court; pull out a gun; shoot him in the head just to watch a man die. In this scenario we would all agree that this was wrong…really wrong in fact. My action possessed no justification outside of fulfilling my perverse pleasure. We can all agree that I am a bad person and deserve to be locked up.

Scenario B: I walk into a local mall; a man grabs a womans purse and runs for the door; the woman cries out for help; I shoot man in head. In this scenario, the verdict is a bit more hazy. My actions were arguably justified by the theft. Had I not have shot, he would have escaped out the door with the womans purse; however, was her purse worth taking the thief’s life? Many people will come to very different conclusions about my actions on this occasion. Some will view me a hero, others a villain.

Scenario C: I walk into a local mall; I see a man holding a knife to a child’s throat; the man announces that in 10 seconds he will kill the girl; the man starts counting; I shoot man in the head; girl survives shaken but unharmed. In this scenario, the same act nets a different verdict. This time I am universally viewed as a hero; in fact it could be argued that it would have been immoral not to have shot the man.

Again, same action, three separate verdicts. Morality is dependent upon the circumstances as much as anything else. The consequences of my actions are the basis for how I’ll be judged. Sure, we can come up with a list of acts that are always wrong, but that’s because there is no potential outcome that could possibly justify those particular actions. Ultimately, objective morality is either a tautology (I.e. rape is wrong because rape is wrong) or insufficient (I.e. god said not to do it so don’t do it).

I don’t think that what you are supporting here is really subjectivity which amounts to saying that there is no such thing as truth with regard to moral assertions. There could be true and false statements to make regarding morals that depend on such circumstantial considerations as you’ve suggested above.

I think Syntax is probably right in saying that you are confusing ‘moral absolutism which says “moral principle X holds unconditionally” with moral objectivity which says “moral principle X holds universally for all people.”’

Perhaps it would help to move the conversation forward if you and Syntax were both clear about what is meant by the terms “objective” and “subjective.”

Best,
Leela

 

[Syntax]

The argument here is whether objective morality exists in a universe without God. I agree that lions are not moral creatures (in either universe) but my point for bringing them up was to address your assumption that morality is implied by consistent behavior between societies. Given that lions behave consistently between prides why is your argument any less applicable to them? I know it is silly to contend that lion behavior can be immoral but I am addressing the applicability of your argument.

The existence of morality is implied by the moral behavior of societies, Ender, not just by any such behavior. This is why your analogy to animals is disanalogous. How is the amoral behavior of animals relevent here?

Perhaps, but it is also true that most people throughout history also believed in a god (or gods) who were in fact the lawgivers. That is, they believed in objective morality because they believed in God. We are trying to address whether those beliefs would hold up in a universe where it was known that God does not exist…

Yes! People believe moral objectivity exists throughout history. Who cares what their reasons were. The fact that they believed morality exists is good evidence for thinking that it does. What’s the objection here? You say “perhaps.” Does that mean you agree?

I consider the previous objection a pretty strong one but I will ignore it for now and address the points you raise and see if a good case can be made for the existence of objective morality based on a study of historical behavior.

Your alleged “previous objection” was not an objection to my claims, in spite of what you may think. See remark above. Pay attention to what I am saying, please.
.

Let’s take the law. Why would laws per se be indicative of morality any more than the rules of golf?

Because rules of golf do not make mention of moral worthiness and blameworthiness in its distinctions of actions. How is this an objection? Isn’t the distinction obvious to you?

It is unquestionably necessary for there to be peaceful interactions between people that there be rules to govern them, but as I said this also applies to games. We have laws prohibiting murder, sodomy, and speeding.

So? Some laws within games are moral, some are purely pragmatic telling you how to win the game. We can clearly make distinctions. Are you saying you cannot make these distinctions?

What general rule can we apply that allows us to distinguish between those that pertain to morality and those that do not?

Here’s a rule: those claims that mention or directly imply oughts, shoulds, ought-not,, should-not , allowed, forbidden, permissible, impermissible, in their statements are indicative of moral kinds of claims. Those rules or principles that do not mention or imply these morally-binding terms, are not. Now that we’ve localized the moral kinds of claims from the merely pragmatic or conventional, the next task consists of deciding which of these purported moral claims are the correct ones.

As was pointed out earlier, if you cannot know which moral principles are true then their existence is meaningless.

This is false. First, we can know which moral principles are true. Second, if *you *can’t tell which ones are true, that doesn’t mean these moral principles are meaningless for the rest of us.

Seriously, what ARE your objections?? Are you just playing games?

 

[Betterave]

Hi all,

If atheists do not see morality as conforming to a divinely created Moral Law and can’t then measure moral progress based on how we’ve progressed as a society toward agreement with this Law, how could an atheist possibly measure moral progress?

Well, since you’ve asked, I’ll tell you!

Our moral concerns are not about conformity to such a Law but rather about the concerns we have for other human beings. Then moral progress is for us a matter of wider and wider sympathy. We can progress by better understanding people’s needs and by taking more people’s needs into account than we did before…

Ender doesn’t see atheism and morality as compatible: “If there is no God, then why would we need to be concerned for others, why wouldn’t we be running around raping and pillaging and stealing one another’s pornography?” The simple answer for most people is, “because we are not sociopaths.”

First, obviously Ender is not most people. Don’t generalize from Ender to ‘religious people in general’ - that’s not going to produce a sound generalization. (Plus, I think you’d agree: Ender’s words are quite possibly reflective of his localized conceptual confusion about morality, more so than his actual understanding of reality - and this kind of thing is something that is a very general phenomenon, in all camps.)

Second, I don’t think conservative orthodoxy would disagree with any of the principles you’ve suggested here. It sounds like your measure of progress is in fact something like “God’s law,” even if you mock the notion. God’s law, as we understand it, is fundamentally a law of love, to love your neighbor as yourself. It was St. Augustine who wrote, “Love, and do what you wish” (I don’t think we need the ham-fisted (anti-)moralizing of the movie Chocolat to teach us that). Orthodox Christianity is centered on the command to love; the “thou shalt not’s” are corollaries of this command. You disagree with some of the ways those corollaries are worked out, but you’re erecting a very obvious straw man if you think Christian principles are fundamentally about exclusion and ignoring people’s real needs, in contrast to your liberal ethic of sympathy, which you seem to suggest dispenses with ‘forbidding.’ That’s obviously a silly suggestion, although you did well to qualify your claim: “when seen from the liberal perspective” - we must just add that from our perspective, yours is a skewed perspective which is not truthful or fair in the sweeping generalizations and dichotomies it makes, indeed the walls it sets up. At the very least, you are begging all sorts of questions about what people really need and how to go about being sensitive to those needs. I’ll also suggest to you that you may be underestimating the role that Christianity has played in the historical development that has made possible your liberal pragmatism, at least what is good about it. In any case, those are extremely complex historical questions and you’re really not addressing them in a responsible way.

 

[Leela]

Sure. But I don’t think Leela was claiming that it should act as the only fundamental moral principle from which all others can be derived. Leela (I think) is merely saying that it is a properly basic truth.

That’s right.

Also, I don’t want to take the axiom thing too far. It is just an analogy. I don’t think that we actually form beliefs by starting with a blank slate, postulating axioms, and then making deductions. The Cartesian thought experiment was never the position that humanity was in. We all already have beliefs and we constantly decide which ones to keep and which ones to change. We try to get our beliefs to logically cohere and to agree with our experience.

In trying to explain our beliefs, we sometimes have to admit that there is no further explanation that can be made. We have exhausted our conversational resources. At such times we assert general principles, but our reasoning is not actually based on such principles. These principles are inferred from individual judgments and have to be evaluated in a give and take between applying such principles and making sure that our principles agree with the judgments we make in specific circumstances. These principles play the role of theories and the individual judgments play the role of facts. Theories must always answer to the facts.

Best,
Leela

 

[Betterave]

Because you have misunderstood my words in no way implies I’ve misused them.

I misspoke before. I’ll correct myself: …you can be sure, my dear Exodus, that misuse of words is not only troublesome in itself, but actually has a bad effect on the soul.

 

[Syntax]

I don’t think that what you are supporting here is really subjectivity which amounts to saying that there is no such thing as truth with regard to moral assertions. There could be true and false statements to make regarding morals that depend on such circumstantial considerations as you’ve suggested above.

I think Syntax is probably right in saying that you are confusing ‘moral absolutism which says “moral principle X holds unconditionally” with moral objectivity which says “moral principle X holds universally for all people.”’

Perhaps it would help to move the conversation forward if you and Syntax were both clear about what is meant by the terms “objective” and “subjective.”

Best,
Leela

“moral objectivity”–moral principles binding on all persons.
“moral subjectivity”–moral principles binding on no persons.
“moral relativism”–moral principles binding on some, but not all, persons.

I think the latter two terms are oxymorons. I take “moral” to mean “objectively moral.”

 

[Betterave]

It seems you do not understand what Ender is saying (who is right on the money with his conclusions.)

Nobody understands what Ender’s saying… Ender doesn’t understand what Ender’s saying.

If something is accidental with regards to a goal or purpose (i.e. something pre-ordained), then there is no objective purpose to the universe. If there is no objectivity - nothing outside the human which justifies the value of various things - then life is objectivley meaningless. Things like human life being “precious” are nothing more than subjective (and ultimately accidental) constructs of the human brain, which has came about, not by any purpose outside itself, but simply due to matter acting on matter in a various, nonmeaningful way.

hmmm… If ‘objectivity’ is a subjective construct, then ‘objectivity’ will be found wherever subjectivity has constructed it - the ‘where is it?’ will be an a posteriori question, will it not?

A distinction for you to think about:
a) no objective purpose to the universe
b) no objective purpose in the universe
Can you see that these are logically distinct?

 

[Leela]

First, obviously Ender is not most people. Don’t generalize from Ender to ‘religious people in general’ - that’s not going to produce a sound generalization. (Plus, I think you’d agree: Ender’s words are quite possibly reflective of his localized conceptual confusion about morality, more so than his actual understanding of reality - and this kind of thing is something that is a very general phenomenon, in all camps.)

The “most people” simply refers to all of us who are not psychopaths. I wouldn’t have thought implying the inclusion of “religious people in general” in that group would be an issue since we agree that most religious people are not psychopaths.

Second, I don’t think conservative orthodoxy would disagree with any of the principles you’ve suggested here. It sounds like your measure of progress is in fact something like “God’s law,” even if you mock the notion.

I wouldn’t call what I have ever done with regard to the Moral Law as mocking. I have just repeatedly pointed out the problem of not having any way to compare a moral assertion to such a Law (taken as the collection of all true assertions about morality) if it exists, so the question of whether or not it does exist somewhere out there is moot.

God’s law, as we understand it, is fundamentally a law of love, to love your neighbor as yourself. It was St. Augustine who wrote, “Love, and do what you wish” (I don’t think we need the ham-fisted (anti-)moralizing of the movie Chocolat to teach us that). Orthodox Christianity is centered on the command to love; the “thou shalt not’s” are corollaries of this command. You disagree with some of the ways those corollaries are worked out, but you’re erecting a very obvious straw man if you think Christian principles are fundamentally about exclusion and ignoring people’s real needs, in contrast to your liberal ethic of sympathy, which you seem to suggest dispenses with ‘forbidding.’

I am not criticizing Christianity as being essentially this view at all. I am only criticizing the cost-free moralizing of many people (often Christians) who see morality as a bunch of things that others should do or not do to improve and see themselves as virtuous for simply holding the “right” moral views at no cost to themselves.

The quote I gave by the fictional Catholic priest I think is consistent with the ethics as I read in the Gospels, so I have never been surprised that it was put into the mouth of a priest. I am moved by Jesus’ solidarity with the impoverished and the poor in spirit and turned off by the moralizing of many who claim to doing such moralizing in Jesus’ name.

That’s obviously a silly suggestion, although you did well to qualify your claim: “when seen from the liberal perspective” - we must just add that from our perspective, yours is a skewed perspective which is not truthful or fair in the sweeping generalizations and dichotomies it makes, indeed the walls it sets up. At the very least, you are begging all sorts of questions about what people really need and how to go about being sensitive to those needs.

The two moral views that I am comparing are the view of morality as our concerns for others versus the view of morality as trying not to make God angry. We see the second view when Pat Robertson spouts his nonsense about God’s wrath against gays coming in the form of epidemics and natural disasters. Obviously all religious people don’t think this way at least to such extremes, but many apply that second view in certain situations. My hope is that people we come to drop that second view completely. Perhaps you will agree.

I’ll also suggest to you that you may be underestimating the role that Christianity has played in the historical development that has made possible your liberal pragmatism, at least what is good about it. In any case, those are extremely complex historical questions and you’re really not addressing them in a responsible way.

Whether or not Christianity played any historical role in developing our moral knowledge has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Christianity is worth keeping today. Perhaps it was a ladder we can be glad to have climbed but we no longer need, but we have no way of knowing what the world would be like today if Christianity had not developed as a religion. We can’t compare hypothetical realities and know whether or not we are better off as things actually stand.

Best,
Leela

 

[Betterave]

In trying to explain our beliefs, we sometimes have to admit that there is no further explanation that can be made. We have exhausted our conversational resources. At such times we assert general principles, but our reasoning is not actually based on such principles. These principles are inferred from individual judgments and have to be evaluated in a give and take between applying such principles and making sure that our principles agree with the judgments we make in specific circumstances. These principles play the role of theories and the individual judgments play the role of facts. Theories must always answer to the facts.

That’s one way to look at it (a rather extreme way). Another possible option is to allow that judgments and principles are both ‘facts,’ that judgments are based on principles as well as being the basis for principles, and that judgments and principles can and should be used to balance each other.

 

[Betterave]

The “most people” simply refers to all of us who are not psychopaths. I wouldn’t have thought implying the inclusion of “religious people in general” in that group would be an issue since we agree that most religious people are not psychopaths.

And yet the “religious people” you refer to are the ones who believe in hell, about whom you wrote:
“Teaching our children to do what -]a Church/-] God commands out of fear of personal punishment by eternal damnation, would be one way of doing just that. That is the sort of moral teaching that results in sociopaths, people concerned only for their own well-being or their own souls rather than people with a capacity for empathy for other human beings. Hell keeps people in line just like our legal system but it doesn’t make them more moral.”

Now maybe you meant something nuanced and defensible in saying that, but I don’t think it came across very well.

I wouldn’t call what I have ever done with regard to the Moral Law as mocking. I have just repeatedly pointed out the problem of not having any way to compare a moral assertion to such a Law (taken as the collection of all true assertions about morality) if it exists, so the question of whether or not it does exist somewhere out there is moot.

But you do so in a summary way, as if you understand the Moral Law to be obviously nothing but an empty conceptual construct (which it may be in your worldview), and those who believe in it as something real and effective to be obviously deluded (like that moron Plato, for example). To me, it comes across as narrow-minded and mocking (in a very unconvincing way, obviously). You’re free to view it otherwise.

I am not criticizing Christianity as being essentially this view at all. I am only criticizing the cost-free moralizing of many people (often Christians) who see morality as a bunch of things that others should do or not do to improve and see themselves as virtuous for simply holding the “right” moral views at no cost to themselves.

The quote I gave by the fictional Catholic priest I think is consistent with the ethics as I read in the Gospels, so I have never been surprised that it was put into the mouth of a priest. I am moved by Jesus’ solidarity with the impoverished and the poor in spirit and turned off by the moralizing of many who claim to doing such moralizing in Jesus’ name.

Certainly some of that is fair. But the Jesus of the Gospels believed in hell and warned people about it (see above) - I wonder what you make of that? I suspect you would view Jesus as a religious nut if you were to meet him and he said some of the things he says in the Gospels. Correct?

The two moral views that I am comparing are the view of morality as our concerns for others versus the view of morality as trying not to make God angry. We see the second view when Pat Robertson spouts his nonsense about God’s wrath against gays coming in the form of epidemics and natural disasters. Obviously all religious people don’t think this way at least to such extremes, but many apply that second view in certain situations. My hope is that people we come to drop that second view completely. Perhaps you will agree.

I’m afraid I will not. For a Catholic, that would be presumptuous. Do you think that people should never get angry? If we care about justice, if we love people, anger is an appropriate reaction when those things and people we care about are abused. Anger can very much be part of an ethic of care. Do you think it should not be?

Whether or not Christianity played any historical role in developing our moral knowledge has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Christianity is worth keeping today. Perhaps it was a ladder we can be glad to have climbed but we no longer need, but we have no way of knowing what the world would be like today if Christianity had not developed as a religion. We can’t compare hypothetical realities and know whether or not we are better off as things actually stand.

We can’t…? I think that’s a false claim. It’s very difficult to compare accurately, though, I’ll grant that much. It’s a hermeneutically complicated field of study, but certainly not one that is totally lacking in resources.

Supposing your claim were true, I think it would be more obviously true that we would have no way of knowing whether Chrisitianity is a ladder that we now no longer need.

 

[Ender]

The Exodus:

You will not, however, find a reason as to how morality can objectively exist if there is no God.

I agree with you; my intent was to address the arguments presented by those who disagree.

Syntax:

So atheists will simply deny that God is required to ground objective moral truths.

Of course some will. The issue is whether their reasons for insisting on the existence or morality are reasonable. That’s what this thread was meant to explore.

Zerilos:

The argument really seems to be nothing more than this: if god didn’t grant us objective morality then we’d all live lives of indiscriminate violence; we don’t live lives of indiscriminate violence; ergo, god gave us our morality.

An attempt to prove the existence of God would be completely irrelevant to a discussion based on the premise that God does not exist. Attack the arguments being made, not the ones you think might show up.

Objective morality is a farce, observed by nobody. Few if any acts are evil or good in every situation.

The question is not whether we can find the correct solution to moral dilemmas; it is much more basic: whether morality even exists or is merely subjective to individuals or societies.

Leela:

Ender seems to think that an atheist is forced into the position of being amoral.

This again misses the point. Since so many of you seem so confused about what I believe I’ll spell it out.

(1) Morality (objectively) exists only if God exists. Both the theist and the atheist can behave either morally or immorally because morality exists.
(2) If God does not exist then neither the theist nor the atheist can act morally because morality no more exists for man than for any other animal.

This is a theoretical discussion; I stated back in the OP that we were all to argue the point on the assumption that God does not exist, therefore I am arguing from the perspective of (2). I am not arguing what I personally believe; I am presenting what I see as the logically strongest position given the conditions set for the discussion.

So, Leela, I am not arguing that atheists can’t behave morally. I’m actually arguing that no one can since objective morality does not exist, it is a purely subjective concept and therefore all acts are amoral.

Ender