Moral Absolutism

[Mirdath]

It does not matter, the answer is still correct. If he reads the thread he will see ideas as “let’s use Kant as an answer” or “let’s use the Golden Rule as a substitute” however none of that holds up under scrutiny, so his comment is correct. All atheists have the same problem which they cannot overcome, without God they have appointed themselves in charge of all things. And yet they must deny this very thing to their neighbor in order to obtain his trust

In much the same way, the elephant doesn’t hold up to the scrutiny of the six blind sages – one says it is like a fan, another like a rope, another like a tree, another like a wall, another like a spear, the last like a snake. Does the elephant not exist?

You do not get to tell me what I believe or what drives me. Stop trying.

 

[john_doran]

It does not matter, the answer is still correct. If he reads the thread he will see ideas as “let’s use Kant as an answer” or “let’s use the Golden Rule as a substitute” however none of that holds up under scrutiny, so his comment is correct. All atheists have the same problem which they cannot overcome, without God they have appointed themselves in charge of all things. And yet they must deny this very thing to their neighbor in order to obtain his trust

why can’t there be an objective morality without god? i mean, all you need to get objectivity is for your morality to be grounded in something objective; why not human nature, for example?

 

[Doug50]

why can’t there be an objective morality without god? i mean, all you need to get objectivity is for your morality to be grounded in something objective; why not human nature, for example?

That would depend on how you define “God”. For example: Did God create the moral codes? Or is morality symply a part of God’s nature?

If there is such a thing as a moral Truth what is the source of this Truth? Is it created? Did it evolve?

Seems to me that if God is Truth then that Truth would also have to include moral Truth and God does not create Himself.

Going back to my first post. Is it possible to believe in an objective morality without beliving in some god? Sure. But logic must follow from its metaphysical premis. Everyone has a metaphysical belief about the nature of reality. If they claim not to have a metaphysic, they don’t understand the term. Materialism is a metaphysic

To some of the posters here: situational ethics is not moral relativism. You have a misunderstanding of the term. So to clarify, this is what moral relativism is: Relativism and Subjectivism

Drawing from the argument in that link, the problem for athiests in arguing for morality is that…for moral relativism is doesn’t matter what any moral code is founded upon since all moral codes must be equivalent. No code, whether its based upon an Islamic sharia, or based upon the Declaration of Independence or the UN Declaration of Human Rights, is no more prase worthy nor blame worthy than any other code. To say otherwise is to inject some kind of an objective standard. Once anyone does that they have factually rejected moral relativism and by extention they have also rejected Naturalism. There is no such thing as a true moralily in Naturalism. There is no such thing as an objective moral standard in Naturalism. There is no such thing as moral progress in Naturalism. There is no such thing as a human right in Naturalism.

Naturalism doesn’t endow anything with any kind of right. There’s no true morals in nature.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Without God every human individual will base his or her morals on what they believe to be correct. No?

With God we will base our morals on what God said.

I believe that with God we may be forced to obey morals we may not believe in. That shows our obedience.

That said I don’t see any reason that both sets of morals cannot be the same?

 

[Doug50]

Without God every human individual will base his or her morals on what they believe to be correct. No?

Fact is they do this anyway based upon what they believe about God. Islamic sharia/law is one example.

With God we will base our morals on what God said.

I believe that with God we may be forced to obey morals we may not believe in. That shows our obedience.

As so the Musleums claim to do too.

Catholicism, to my understanding, has never been about accepting blind faith but rather reasoned faith - Faith and Reason.

But this way of faith takes phylosophical effort. We have doctors of the Church who’ve done much of the effort - Aquinas, for example. It sadens me that so many of today’s Catholics with access to phylosophical/theological Catholicism at their keyboard are ignoring this wealth of information and looking to emotionalism in an attempt to streghten their faith. Since more and more people want to feel God, emotionalism is coming before reason.

That said I don’t see any reason that both sets of morals cannot be the same?

It’s all in how you phylosophycally define “God”. For example: Even though the two metaphysice share a lot of similarities (both hold that nature is all there is) a pantheist can believe in an objective morality. A naturalist cannot.

 

[Sideline]

Its not a bad idea, but I could see that justifying a number of sins, slowly drifting into utilitarianism.

Well, yes you are absolutely right on that score.

To be honest about the whole situation. I would just lie. I would lie long, hard, and often. “Jews? In here? The very notion is repulsive. I would rather burn down my house than let one of those traitors pass through the door. No worries, no Jews in here.”

So I don’t know, is lying wrong in that situation? It would never even occur to me to ask myself that.

I would never dream of asking someone else to suffer for my righteousness. If it is a sin, then fine, on my head be it. I would rather face my maker saying, “Yes, I lied to a gang of killers.” Than have to say, “Yes, I let a family be raped, tortured, mutilated, and killed so that I myself wouldn’t be forced to tell a lie.” And if there is no maker to meet, I would still rather not have the death of innocent people on my hands if I could possibly help it. If there is torment to be suffered, then better I should suffer it, than a bunch of people who were guilty of nothing other than having the wrong parents at the wrong time.

I think I more or less have this lying stuff. I’m planning on going to a Catholic college (University of Dallas -pray for me, its gonna be expensive) next year, so any kinks I have I hope to get worked out .

Hope all goes well, and all the best!
:tiphat:

 

[iamrefreshed]

Fact is they do this anyway based upon what they believe about God. Islamic sharia/law is one example.

Yes. The believer may choose the faith (Islam, Hindu etc.) but then their morals are pre-selected. There is no changing. Example. Maybe, as a catholic, I don’t believe it’s wrong to use birth control yet I DO NOT out of obedience to my faith based morals.

Catholicism, to my understanding, has never been about accepting blind faith but rather reasoned faith - Faith and Reason.

That’s not my understanding of catholicism. I must obey the tenets of my faith. Even if they are difficult or don’t seem reasonable to me. How else could i call myself catholic?

 

[Doug50]

Yes. The believer may choose the faith (Islam, Hindu etc.) but then their morals are pre-selected. There is no changing. Example. Maybe, as a catholic, I don’t believe it’s wrong to use birth control yet I DO NOT out of obedience to my faith based morals.

That’s not my understanding of catholicism. I must obey the tenets of my faith. Even if they are difficult or don’t seem reasonable to me. How else could i call myself catholic?

If they don’t seem reason-able maybe it because you haven’t spent enough time reading the philosophical arguments against them. I haven’t looked at the links but this should get you a start:
search “birth control” ncbcenter.org/

 

[iamrefreshed]

If they don’t seem reason-able maybe it because you haven’t spent enough time reading the philosophical arguments against them. I haven’t looked at the links but this should get you a start:
search “birth control” ncbcenter.org/

I think you misunderstood me. That was an example.

I do believe birth control is wrong. However, not from a philosophical standpoint but from the standpoint of obedience. There is no need for me to know or understand any more than it is against my catholic faith.

I believe that this is a part of what Christ meant by being ‘childlike’.

My baby need not know why I don’t let him play in traffic. He just need not play in traffic.

Does an atheist have such obedience or must they create their own morals?

 

[Sideline]

Now that I’ve read this post over a couple of times, I’m curious why the believer thinks that they have any less of a problem with absolute moral law than the non-believer.

In countries that follow the Rule of Law there are a set of statutes that apply to everyone, regarless of their beliefs about right and wrong. There is no debate that the law applies, but there is a world of debate over how the law applies. So we have a set of people who are empowered to interpret the law, and their word is binding.

There may be a universal law, but there is no universal court. At least this court doesn’t exist on earth. There are those that believe that the majesterium is that court, but it is certainly not universally held to be true. Different people accept different courts, which have different interpretations that they believe are right for different reasons.

Some of these courts claim different statutes in the first place, so
the matter is pretty murky for the propent of natural law as well. I’m not saying that natural law doesn’t exist, but the natural law is subject to interpretation. So… the absolutist must allow a certain degree of subjectivity into his argument as well.

I can understand where Nepenthe is coming from. The only court he can be absolutely sure of is the one inside his head.

 

[Sideline]

why can’t there be an objective morality without god? i mean, all you need to get objectivity is for your morality to be grounded in something objective; why not human nature, for example?

You have such an incisive way of getting to the crux of the question. I’m really impressed… and slightly jealous. :tiphat:

 

[john_doran]

Without God every human individual will base his or her morals on what they believe to be correct. No?

sure, but why can’t an atheist believe that the correct morality is one which is objective (applies to all people) and is also absolute (consists of exceptionless moral norms)?

as i suggested, for a morality to be objective requires only that it have an objective foundation; surely god is not the only possible such foundation. is he?

iamrefreshed:

With God we will base our morals on what God said.

this sounds like “divine command” morality. the problem is that this is in fact ***not ***an answer to the question “where does morality come from?”, since the proposition “moral norms are dictated by god” presupposes a more fundamental moral norm, namely “people ought to do what god dictates”.

see what i’m saying? if it weren’t already true that human beings are bound by the objective moral principle, “we ought to do what god commands us to do”, then god’s commands would have no normative force for us.

no moral force, anyway - it would certainly behoove us as a matter of simple practical rationality to do whatever someone more powerful than us commanded us to do, but that’s doesn’t transform those commands into moral norms.

it’s actually this idea of morality that can be a sticking point for atheists and agnostics, because it really does make god look like a power-mad dictator issuing arbitrary commands under threats of eternal torture for non-compliance…

on the other hand, if practical reasoning is grounded in the rational animality of human nature, and is understood as a given, just as hypothetical reasoning is, then the “ought” of morality is transformed into a directiveness toward human fulfilment - toward a flourishing that involves a life full of goods that are the fulfillment of human persons.

understood in this way, god doesn’t issue commands so much as he tells us things that are good or bad for us that we may not otherwise come to know…

anyway, just some thoughts.

 

[Doug50]

Does an atheist have such obedience or must they create their own morals?

The point is, if the nature of morality is relativism then it doesn’t matter what morals are based upon. Not only that it doesn’t matter what is and isn’t moral. In cultural relativism slavery can be moral in one culture but not moral in another. Which moral code is right and which is wrong? neither, they are equally perferable by their cultural standards.In relativism there is no such thing as a correct morality, there is no such thing as true morality.

To understand this you almost have to imagine yourself as an alien studying different social behaviors on this planet. For science there is no such thing as a truer social behavior.

 

[Doug50]

Originally Posted by john doran
why can’t there be an objective morality without god? i mean, all you need to get objectivity is for your morality to be grounded in something objective; why not human nature, for example?

You have such an incisive way of getting to the crux of the question. I’m really impressed… and slightly jealous. :tiphat:

Morals can be objectified in the normative sense but not in the metaethical sense.

Civil moral codes (civil rights) are organic rights in that they are the subject of cultural. That is they are subordinate to culture.

But human rights? These rights don’t come from culture. It’s claimed that all cultures are universally subordinate to these codes.

That begs questions: If the source of objective civil rights are societies what is the source of objective human rights? I dare anyone find the organic, objective source of human rights. You won’t find it. And a good hint for knowing that is the very fact that all claims to universal human rights are based upon Declarations. As in declarations to a self-evident truth.

I’ve had atheists actually tell me that “well, humans have human rights by virtue of being human.” I didn’t mind telling them that such a saying was just as much a logcial fallacy of circular reasoning as their complaining to Chirstians of the claim “the bible is true because the bible says it’s true.” was circular.

 

[john_doran]

Morals can be objectified in the normative sense but not in the metaethical sense.

what does this mean?

Doug50:

Civil moral codes (civil rights) are organic rights in that they are the subject of cultural. That is they are subordinate to culture.

But human rights? These rights don’t come from culture. It’s claimed that all cultures are universally subordinate to these codes.

That begs questions: If the source of objective civil rights are societies what is the source of objective human rights? I dare anyone find the organic, objective source of human rights. You won’t find it. And a good hint for knowing that is the very fact that all claims to universal human rights are based upon Declarations. As in declarations to a self-evident truth.

i’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here…you’re focusing on “human rights”

I’ve had atheists actually tell me that “well, humans have human rights by virtue of being human.” I didn’t mind telling them that such a saying was just as much a logcial fallacy of circular reasoning as their complaining to Chirstians of the claim “the bible is true because the bible says it’s true.” was circular.

 

[john_doran]

Morals can be objectified in the normative sense but not in the metaethical sense.

what does this mean?

Doug50:

Civil moral codes (civil rights) are organic rights in that they are the subject of cultural. That is they are subordinate to culture.

But human rights? These rights don’t come from culture. It’s claimed that all cultures are universally subordinate to these codes.

what do you think the connection is between “human rights” and human morality?

Doug50:

That begs questions: If the source of objective civil rights are societies what is the source of objective human rights? I dare anyone find the organic, objective source of human rights. You won’t find it. And a good hint for knowing that is the very fact that all claims to universal human rights are based upon Declarations. As in declarations to a self-evident truth.

why can’t the source be human nature?

Doug50:

I’ve had atheists actually tell me that “well, humans have human rights by virtue of being human.” I didn’t mind telling them that such a saying was just as much a logcial fallacy of circular reasoning as their complaining to Chirstians of the claim “the bible is true because the bible says it’s true.” was circular.

well, no, it’s not circular reasoning at all: it’s simply a tautology. that is to say, human rights by definition belong only to humans - it’s an analytical truth, like saying “A is A”.

why else would humans have “human” rights?

 

[Sideline]

That begs questions: If the source of objective civil rights are societies what is the source of objective human rights? I dare anyone find the organic, objective source of human rights.

I’ve had atheists actually tell me that “well, humans have human rights by virtue of being human.” I didn’t mind telling them that such a saying was just as much a logcial fallacy of circular reasoning as their complaining to Chirstians of the claim “the bible is true because the bible says it’s true.” was circular.

In my laundry hamper right now, I have six socks. They are very slightly different in shape, and they are slightly different shades. Other than their colour and shape, I can’t find any real difference between them. They are pretty much the same, and to say that any one sock is more deserving of better treatment, or that any sock has a greater set of rights, is groundless. They are socks with all of the rights and privelages of being socks.

I didn’t need to imbue them with these rights, nor did anyone else. They are not equal because I declared them equal, but just because there is no grounds on which to think that they are unequal. Do you find that circular? Do you think that some other authority needed to declare the socks equal?

On my planet there are about 6 billion people. They are slightly different shapes, and slightly different shades and colours. But they are all people. The biggest difference between them and the socks is that people are self-aware.

As a human, I don’t have to find some external reference point for assuming that we are all equal. It is pretty much inherent in the fact that we are all human. I am now faced with a choice, do I treat the other 6 billion humans as equals or not? Like most people in the world, my answer is “sometimes”.

 

[iamrefreshed]

it’s actually this idea of morality that can be a sticking point for atheists and agnostics, because it really does make god look like a power-mad dictator issuing arbitrary commands under threats of eternal torture for non-compliance…

Kinda like one’s parents may have looked when told you couldn’t do something?

For me it’s quite simple, God requires obedience to His moral laws. Since he is the ‘power-mad dictator’ I’d better listen!

That is the logical thing, no?

 

[john_doran]

Kinda like one’s parents may have looked when told you couldn’t do something?

exactly.

iamrefreshed:

For me it’s quite simple, God requires obedience to His moral laws. Since he is the ‘power-mad dictator’ I’d better listen!

That is the logical thing, no?

i don’t know about “logical”, but it’s certainly less than ideal.

doing the right thing out of fear of punishment is - to use your example - to act like a moral child. the best reason to do the right thing is because it’s the right thing. period.

and things aren’t right or wrong because god says so: god says so because they’re right or wrong.

 

[Doug50]

what does this mean?

what do you think the connection is between “human rights” and human morality?

why can’t the source be human nature?

well, no, it’s not circular reasoning at all: it’s simply a tautology. that is to say, human rights by definition belong only to humans - it’s an analytical truth, like saying “A is A”.

why else would humans have “human” rights?

You need to learn the difference between metaethics and normative ethics. All your questions indicate you have little understand of moral theory. But don’t feel alone most people do not.

Objectified: is the god Thor real? In the normative sense yes. We can study what kind of god Thor was suposed to be. But was he real in the metaphysical sense?

That same reasoning applies in ethics. There is meta and normative.

Are human rights real? Well they certainly are in the normative sense according to our culture but they aren’t in the metaphysical sense if Natualism has anything to say about it…just like the gods. In Naturalism there is no true god and no true morality. Naturalism is both atheistic and amoralistic.

“Why can’t the source be human nature?” Isn’t that what atheists argue about source of all gods - that the source for these thingies are the stuff of human myth making? Well, guess what? To naturalism that same myth making argument holds not only for metaphysical gods but for metaethical morals. To naturalism none of it is Real (not gods or morals). Moral relativism is called moral anti-realism for a reason. Did you not read the link I gave on the subject Moral Relativism Subjectivism? It was from Texas A&M university’s philosophical depatment.

For a true Naturalist to argue for one relative moral code over another is like an atheist arguing for one god over another. What’s the point?

If you inject any standard that so much as imply one moral system ought to be preferred to another you will have inadvertantly injected a metaphysical/metaethical objective standard that would not only cause you to factually be denying moral relativism but you will also be rejecting Naturalism to boot. There’s no getting around that. Your metaphysic must be compatible with your metaethic.

Since Secularism holds to a belief in Natualism is necessarily follows that the metaethic is moral anti-realism (aka moral relativism).

Humanims OTOH holds to a belief that all people are the posesors of individual rights that cannot be negated by any social legal system. Therefore the Jews in Nazi Germany actually did have a metaethical right to life and liberty. In short humanism is moral realism

What happens if you marry an anti-moral realism with a moral realism? How can something be both metaethcially real and not real at the same time? It can’t. Secular humanism is an oxymoron.

If you’re the type of person who tells me you don’t have a metaphyical belief, I going to tell you that you don’t know what ther term means. Even materialism is a metaphysical belief.