Moral Absolutism

[fix]

How does one discover the moral authority for objective values and morality, without reference to God (because referencing God is pointless to atheists or in a secular matter)?

They may think it pointless, but that does not make them correct or their position reasonable. Why would we exclude God from morality?

Would we exclude mathematics from discerning why 2+2=4?

 

[scottm]

Thanks for the responses everyone. I think my question on moral absolutes boils down to a question of who or what is the arbitrator of these truths, not just how we get there, but who/what decides whose right?

Yes. And the first consequence of this is that there is no single answer accepted by everyone. Bummer.

If God is the sole arbitrator of moral truth, then any moral argument for legalizing/criminalizing anything (slavery, abortion, etc) is meaningless due to the establishment clause - appeals to God cannot be a justification for secular legislation.

But only as a consequence of the “there is no single answer accepted by everyone.” There’s a lot of overlap between Moral System X and Moral System Y.

And besides, if God is the only way of determining moral truth, I suspect that atheists would sooner fall into believing that there is no absolute moral truth (which many do) than be forced to believe in a God due to justify their belief in absolute morality.

That’s not fair to them – give them a reason to believe in God and they’ll gladly accept one of the competing absolute moral truths. The problem is giving them a reason to believe. Even right here here we have a problem: they don’t differentiate one deity from another. All the big-G Gods and little-g gods are the same to them. So, if the mass of theists cannot agree on the moral systems that “God” has allegedly given us, then why should an atheist even believe that there is a God behind morals?

 

[scottm]

Killing is not against the Commandment, murder is. Murder being the killing of innocent life. There is no distinction for lying. Lying is wrong is wrong. There is no word for “lying to preserve life.” The church says that lying is also acceptable if the inquiring party doesn’t have a right to that information. Why is this? If lying is a sin - being the deliberate distortion of the Truth, a good - how can it ever be used? Killing someone is not a sin because it is in just defense. Murder is a sin because it is an unjust offense. There is no such distinction for lying.

Really? What of the famous moral dilemma practice problem from WWII – there’s Jews hiding in your house, and you’re aware of this, and you know where they are hiding. The German soldiers come to your house and ask if there are any Jews inside. How do you respond?
(a) Answer truthfully, and send the Jews away to a concentration camp.
(b) Answer untruthfully – tell the soldiers that there are no Jews in here.

If I remember right the answer from Kant’s moral system is give up the Jews to the concentration camp because lying is always wrong. There are other moral systems, such as love, under which the right answer is to deceive the soldiers and thereby protect the Jews. I’m of the opinion that Jesus practiced the morality of love, as opposed to the morality of Kant, but that’s just me.

 

[fix]

Killing is not against the Commandment, murder is. Murder being the killing of innocent life. There is no distinction for lying. Lying is wrong is wrong. There is no word for “lying to preserve life.” The church says that lying is also acceptable if the inquiring party doesn’t have a right to that information. Why is this? If lying is a sin - being the deliberate distortion of the Truth, a good - how can it ever be used? Killing someone is not a sin because it is in just defense. Murder is a sin because it is an unjust offense. There is no such distinction for lying.

The Church does teach lying is always wrong. The delicate part is defining what a lie is. The Church has allowed for mental reservation.

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.283

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What precisely do you imagine I’ve been talking about through this entire thread, TR?

well as you asked, I think you are looking for a moral base

What do you think I’ve said when I’ve discussed the Golden Rule

Which logic tells an atheist he can violate at will if he so chooses, and when this is unknown or some cases known the atheist could reap great rewards

, the Categorical Imperative,

which Kant could not rectify with lying, as the imperative would stomp out. So has lying gone away as the imperative demands? ( see this is a chance to violate the above rule)

and social contracts

Oh yes I am waiting for you to show me my copy signature and all. Would you at least show me your copy? Would a contract not require a reasonable understanding of the parties? And acceptance of the parties? And quid pro quo is that not fundamental?

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

The Church does teach lying is always wrong. The delicate part is defining what a lie is. The Church has allowed for mental reservation.

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.283

EDIT I was in a hurry and forgot to read the link. I’ll get on that.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

They may think it pointless, but that does not make them correct or their position reasonable. Why would we exclude God from morality?

Would we exclude mathematics from discerning why 2+2=4?

Whose god do we use? If we can’t support our political beliefs without reference to God, in my opinion, that violates the separation of Church and State. I am religious and believe abortion is wrong, but I don’t need to reference God to tell me its wrong. If the only way I can support my beliefs is by referencing God, then as far as I’m aware, that leads to a theocracy.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

The Church does teach lying is always wrong. The delicate part is defining what a lie is. The Church has allowed for mental reservation.

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.283

I read it and I’m afraid I just can’t see it. As far as I’m aware, the idea of mental reservation basically says that as long as the rest of the lie is finished in your head, its not a lie (but it can only be done for a good reason). However:

1. It is still done with the intention to deceive -
   If Nazis ask if there are Jews in your house, and you say “There are no Jews in my house,” mental reservation says its ok if you add mentally “That you’re allowed to see.” Its obvious that the intent of the liar was to make the Nazi believe there were no Jews in the house, period
2. If its not a lie, then why does it have to be done only in certain circumstances?

 

[Mirdath]

well as you asked, I think you are looking for a moral base

I have one, and I have been explaining it – much as I have to you personally in the past. I don’t know how I could make that more clear.

Which logic tells an atheist he can violate at will if he so chooses, and when this is unknown or some cases known the atheist could reap great rewards

which Kant could not rectify with lying, as the imperative would stomp out. So has lying gone away as the imperative demands? ( see this is a chance to violate the above rule)

Nothing except love of God and fear of hell is stopping you from violating your moral code – and often, love of self and money inspires Christians to do just that. ‘It can be broken’ is no argument against a moral code.

Oh yes I am waiting for you to show me my copy signature and all. Would you at least show me your copy? Would a contract not require a reasonable understanding of the parties? And acceptance of the parties? And quid pro quo is that not fundamental?

Do you have a driver’s license, a passport, a state ID card, a social security number? That’s proof of your implicit acceptance of a social contract: a citizen is a member of society, a participant – it isn’t just words. So is the email you got saying your membership here was approved. So is the letter from the state licensing you to run your business. We’ve been over this before.

You’re not stupid, TR, I can see that. Where you lose me is your bewildering refusal to consider that anyone else’s point of view might have even a tiny grain of validity. What’s stopping you from admitting that? What’ll it hurt?

 

[fix]

I read it and I’m afraid I just can’t see it. As far as I’m aware, the idea of mental reservation basically says that as long as the rest of the lie is finished in your head, its not a lie (but it can only be done for a good reason).

No, it does not say that. Keep in mind that communication of the naked truth is not unconditional. As I said before we need to define what a lie is first.

However:

1. It is still done with the intention to deceive -
   If Nazis ask if there are Jews in your house, and you say “There are no Jews in my house,” mental reservation says its ok if you add mentally “That you’re allowed to see.” Its obvious that the intent of the liar was to make the Nazi believe there were no Jews in the house, period

The Nazi has no right to that knowledge. A lie includes denying the truth to one who is entitled to that truth.

1. If its not a lie, then why does it have to be done only in certain circumstances?

Because most times people are entitled to the full truth.

 

[fix]

Whose god do we use?

The true God.

If we can’t support our political beliefs without reference to God, in my opinion, that violates the separation of Church and State.

Why? Why does reference to truth violate the constitution? Does atheism violate the constitution?

I am religious and believe abortion is wrong, but I don’t need to reference God to tell me its wrong.

You may provide some proof it is wrong without reference to God, but ultimately that proof you use is limited. It is a start though.

If the only way I can support my beliefs is by referencing God, then as far as I’m aware, that leads to a theocracy.

Huh? So, you think those who believe in God and live their lives that way need to be minimized and should not participate in the political process? Any reference to God as the source of truth leads to a theocracy?

 

[buffalo]

That ‘tit for tat’ you speak of is the Golden Rule; and while that is, in fact, the basis of an absolute moral code (murder is absolutely wrong because I don’t want to be murdered), the issue is a separate one: that it is not objective.

Objectivity is, of course, generally something to be valued; and it is true that, say, the Categorical Imperative possesses that quality in lesser degree than does ‘natural law’. However, ‘natural law’ achieves that objectivity by sacrificing maturity. In the end, the Categorical Imperative says ‘act like this because you want everybody to act like this’; ‘natural law’ says ‘act like this because Daddy said so’. It’s a childish morality, one based not on thought and reason but on fear, subservience, and an arrogant presumption that one is already in the Right.

But how objective is ‘natural law’, anyway? Ask three different people what mores it enforces and you’ll get three different answers – at least! And each answer will come with myriad assurances of its rectitude, and usually with a footnote that the respondent is a shining example of how to live a Moral Life. Interpretation of ‘natural law’, then, pretty much depends on the person – making it about as objective as one’s favorite color. Or, if you like, as objective as the Golden Rule. The Categorical Imperative actually has a leg up on it with the concept of universalization.

Sure, the intentions are irrelevant – intentions don’t affect anyone else. Actions do. As for relevance, you’re pushing the human ego just a little there. ‘ACKNOWLEDGE ME, UNIVERSE!’ shouts the gnat.

Ozymandias’ statue ended up buried in the sand, with its inscription ‘Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair’; what makes you think you’re any more special than he?

I gave an answer in the first reply to the thread Maybe you haven’t spoken with many nontheists who’ve given this particular matter a good deal of thought; ah well, plenty of believers don’t care enough to think it over either.

Thanks

Why didn’t the first atheist murder the second atheist?

 

[Mirdath]

Why didn’t the first atheist murder the second atheist?

‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’ Sheeze. [Edited by Moderator]

 

[mschrank]

Easily. The Golden Rule itself is an absolutist moral code that does not invoke a deity. And Jesus is hardly the only person to have come up with it.

For a slightly more advanced absolutist morality, try Kant: Act always by that maxim whereby you can will it becomes universal law. The Categorical Imperative is perhaps the best absolute morality one can contrive, God or no God.

Of course, nobody is necessarily bound by any moral code; but that’s just as true of divinely mandated morality as it is of any other.

This breaks down if you leave Western civilization. How would Kant or the Golden Rule apply to devout Muslims in Tanzania that practice female circumcision?

 

[buffalo]

‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’ Sheeze. [Edited by Moderator]

Stopped cold!!! Look deeper into the question.

 

[Mirdath]

This breaks down if you leave Western civilization. How would Kant or the Golden Rule apply to devout Muslims in Tanzania that practice female circumcision?

How wouldn’t they?

Golden Rule: I don’t want my genitals mutilated.

Categorical Imperative: amputation of a working, non-diseased body part is universally wrong.

buffalo:

Stopped cold!!! Look deeper into the question.

You can pretty much substitute a giant for the few words which were redacted.

But moving on, what do you have against the idea of enlightened self-interest? Isn’t that why you behave morally – you don’t want to end up in hell?

 

[mschrank]

Midrath, I don’t get it, Kant can’t be used for universal morality because some people might like having their genitals mutilated. They’d disagree with your statement, then it’d just come down to who has the biggest stick who decides what is right and wrong.

 

[buffalo]

How wouldn’t they?

Golden Rule: I don’t want my genitals mutilated.

Categorical Imperative: amputation of a working, non-diseased body part is universally wrong.

You can pretty much substitute a giant for the few words which were redacted.

But moving on, what do you have against the idea of enlightened self-interest? Isn’t that why you behave morally – you don’t want to end up in hell?

At a more immature time fear of hell is a great motivator, as I grew love of God became the motivator.

Answer the question posed.

 

[Mirdath]

Midrath, I don’t get it, Kant can’t be used for universal morality because some people might like having their genitals mutilated. They’d disagree with your statement, then it’d just come down to who has the biggest stick who decides what is right and wrong.

Except the Categorical Imperative isn’t about ‘I like’ or ‘I dislike’. Universalize the problem! Even the extreme masochist knows that there are people who don’t want pieces taken out of them – and it’s also quite likely the masochist wouldn’t want just anyone doing it to him or her for no reason at all.

What you’ve brought up is a failing of the Golden Rule, but not of the Categorical Imperative.

buffalo:

At a more immature time fear of hell is a great motivator, as I grew love of God became the motivator.

Would you care as much if not for the threat of hell? Would you be, perhaps, a little more disposed to commit petty sins, to entertain lustful or angry thoughts just that little bit longer, if you knew God would take you up to heaven in the end anyway?

If God did not care enough about your faults and failings to consign you to hell, why on earth would you?

Answer the question posed.

I did, if obliquely: enlightened self-interest.

 

[buffalo]

Except the Categorical Imperative isn’t about ‘I like’ or ‘I dislike’. Universalize the problem! Even the extreme masochist knows that there are people who don’t want pieces taken out of them – and it’s also quite likely the masochist wouldn’t want just anyone doing it to him or her for no reason at all.

What you’ve brought up is a failing of the Golden Rule, but not of the Categorical Imperative.

Would you care as much if not for the threat of hell? Would you be, perhaps, a little more disposed to commit petty sins, to entertain lustful or angry thoughts just that little bit longer, if you knew God would take you up to heaven in the end anyway?

If God did not care enough about your faults and failings to consign you to hell, why on earth would you?

I did, if obliquely: enlightened self-interest.

In the beginning? WOW!