Morality without God?

[PRmerger]

I can answer why people are more skeptical of the gospels. The testimony about Jesus is that he was begotten of a virgin by the Holy Spirit. He walked on water and did other miracles. He rose from the dead. He saved people from their sins. These are extraordinary claims to make about someone. I think it’s pretty easy to understand why someone would be skeptical in the modern age where nothing of this sort has ever happened. Thomas, who was around to see Jesus’s miracles, was still so skeptical that he would accept no testimony about Jesus rising from the dead. He would only believe his own eyes.

What happens, James, is that circular reasoning arises:

“I don’t believe in the Resurrection because Scriptures contain myths.”

And

“The Scriptures are myths because they contain stories like the Resurrection”.

 

[PRmerger]

I really do not believe (in the sense that you ‘believe’) that any of the figures that you mentioned actually existed. I am just assuming that they did. I literally have no idea whether they did or not. And to be honest, neither do you. You make the same assumptions as I do in that respect. We have been told stories, we have read books, we have talked to people. What we believe has a very tenuous connection with reality.

Heh. You are echoing the words of Pope JPII in his magnificent encyclical, Fides et Ratiohere.

It always tickles me when atheists proclaim Catholic truths.

Originally posted by the late, great Pope JPII:
Nonetheless, there are in the life of a human being many more truths which are simply believed than truths which are acquired by way of personal verification. Who, for instance, could assess critically the countless scientific findings upon which modern life is based? Who could personally examine the flow of information which comes day after day from all parts of the world and which is generally accepted as true? Who in the end could forge anew the paths of experience and thought which have yielded the treasures of human wisdom and religion? **This means that the human being—the one who seeks the truth—is also the one who lives by belief.
**

In believing, we entrust ourselves to the knowledge acquired by other people. This suggests an important tension. On the one hand, the knowledge acquired through belief can seem an imperfect form of knowledge, to be perfected gradually through personal accumulation of evidence; on the other hand, belief is often humanly richer than mere evidence, **because it involves an interpersonal relationship and brings into play not only a person’s capacity to know but also the deeper capacity to entrust oneself to others, to enter into a relationship with them which is intimate and enduring.
**

It should be stressed that the truths sought in this interpersonal relationship are not primarily empirical or philosophical. Rather, what is sought is the truth of the person—what the person is and what the person reveals from deep within. Human perfection, then, consists not simply in acquiring an abstract knowledge of the truth, but in a dynamic relationship of faithful self-giving with others. It is in this faithful self-giving that a person finds a fullness of certainty and security. At the same time, however, knowledge through belief, grounded as it is on trust between persons, is linked to truth: in the act of believing, men and women entrust themselves to the truth which the other declares to them.

IOW: most of what we believe we believe because we trust the person who told it to us.

An encounter with the Person leads to a belief in all He has proclaimed.

 

[tonyrey]

Heh. You are echoing the words of Pope JPII in his magnificent encyclical, Fides et Ratio here.

It always tickles me when atheists proclaim Catholic truths.

IOW: most of what we believe we believe because we trust the person who told it to us.

An encounter with the Person leads to a belief in all He has proclaimed.

To trust no one but oneself is an infallible recipe for misery and isolation…

 

[Peter_Plato]

What happens, James, is that circular reasoning arises:

“I don’t believe in the Resurrection because Scriptures contain myths.”

And

“The Scriptures are myths because they contain stories like the Resurrection”.

In an attempt to restore this thread to its original intent:

There is something of this same circularity in any moral position that reduces morality to a merely human level. If morality is merely what I will, then I cannot be the authority by which ethical standards are to be applied to others. They would have as much right to determine their morality as I do. I have no right to inflict my moral principles on them, so no moral principles can be viewed as obligatory except for the individual who considers them obligatory. Something must be wrong with this view because we are convinced that some principles are obligatory for every moral agent not just myself.

That is why moral principles must be grounded in some transcendent reality other than human will in order to be obligatory independent of one’s will.

The untenable position:

P1 Humans are moral agents because they are obligated by ethical principles to act morally.

P2 Ethical principles are those determined by moral agents to be obligatory.

P3 Moral agents cannot be bound by ethical principles independent of their determination.

P4 Human moral agents must determine applicable ethical principles before they can be bound by them.

C1 Human moral agents must be only bound by those principles they determine themselves to be bound by.

From C1: Moral agents are not obligated by anything other than their own determination which implies that moral agents can morally do as they decide by their own determination or will.

C2 Human moral agents are only obligated by their own will.

C3 Human moral agents are not obligated by ethical principles, but by their own will.

C4, If a human agent wills to rape or kill another, then they are obligated to do so.

The way out of this “logical” conclusion is to insist that P2 and P3 are wrong and human agents are, indeed, morally bound by ethical principles whether they are aware of them or not. Moral principles transcend human will and are obligatory independent of an agent’s will, which is what “obligatory” means.

The question to be asked, then, is “By what “authority” is the obligatory nature of ethical principles imposed upon human will?”

Other humans? Why are they special?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

All of the Gospels were certainly written withing the lifetime of the apostle John, who wrote the last Gospel. The first Gospel of Mark was probably disseminated not long after the deaths of Peter and Paul. It clearly was written from lessons taught to Mark by Peter.

 

[PRmerger]

In an attempt to restore this thread to its original intent:

There is something of this same circularity in any moral position that reduces morality to a merely human level. If morality is merely what I will, then I cannot be the authority by which ethical standards are to be applied to others. They would have as much right to determine their morality as I do. I have no right to inflict my moral principles on them, so no moral principles can be viewed as obligatory except for the individual who considers them obligatory. Something must be wrong with this view because we are convinced that some principles are obligatory for every moral agent not just myself.

That is why moral principles must be grounded in some transcendent reality other than human will in order to be obligatory independent of one’s will.

The untenable position:

P1 Humans are moral agents because they are obligated by ethical principles to act morally.

P2 Ethical principles are those determined by moral agents to be obligatory.

P3 Moral agents cannot be bound by ethical principles independent of their determination.

P4 Human moral agents must determine applicable ethical principles before they can be bound by them.

C1 Human moral agents must be only bound by those principles they determine themselves to be bound by.

From C1: Moral agents are not obligated by anything other than their own determination which implies that moral agents can morally do as they decide by their own determination or will.

C2 Human moral agents are only obligated by their own will.

C3 Human moral agents are not obligated by ethical principles, but by their own will.

C4, If a human agent wills to rape or kill another, then they are obligated to do so.

The way out of this “logical” conclusion is to insist that P2 and P3 are wrong and human agents are, indeed, morally bound by ethical principles whether they are aware of them or not. Moral principles transcend human will and are obligatory independent of an agent’s will, which is what “obligatory” means.

The question to be asked, then, is “By what “authority” is the obligatory nature of ethical principles imposed upon human will?”

Other humans? Why are they special?

Thanks for this, Peter. I asked my 19yr old DD, home from college for Easter, to read this and it generated an interesting discussion. I hope she will use this data when she returns to her Philosophical Theology class on Tuesday.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

PRmerger
**
That is why moral principles must be grounded in some transcendent reality other than human will in order to be obligatory independent of one’s will.**

And here is the problem. An absolute god must be found, but it must be the right absolute god. Moloch simply will not do. Yet societies have adopted false and vicious gods, such as the Thugees of India. Adolf Hitler very nearly achieved the status of absolute god in Nazi Germany. Search the world as far as you like. The only absolute god worth adoring and trusting and loving is the God of Love … Jesus Christ.

 

[Bradski]

Moral agents are not obligated by anything other than their own determination which implies that moral agents can morally do as they decide by their own determination or will.

I don’t think you’ve thought that through.

 

[Bradski]

And here is the problem. An absolute god must be found, but it must be the right absolute god.

Let’s say you listed everything that I had to do to be a good person. Actually, come to think of it, the Catechism might cover it, I guess. They’re the ‘rules’ that I would have to follow (but throw in a few others if you like). But let’s say I acted in a way that was indistinguishable, as far as you were concerned, from a good Catholic (but you assume that I believe and pray to God and go to mass etc which I actually don’t do).

Discounting heaven and hell, reward and punishment, what would be the need to find ‘the right absolute god’?

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s say you listed everything that I had to do to be a good person. Actually, come to think of it, the Catechism might cover it, I guess. They’re the ‘rules’ that I would have to follow (but throw in a few others if you like). But let’s say I acted in a way that was indistinguishable, as far as you were concerned, from a good Catholic (but you assume that I believe and pray to God and go to mass etc which I actually don’t do).

Discounting heaven and hell, reward and punishment, what would be the need to find ‘the right absolute god’?

The need would be this: if it’s true that God exists, you would need to find this out.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Originally Posted by Peter Plato
Moral agents are not obligated by anything other than their own determination which implies that moral agents can morally do as they decide by their own determination or will.

Be clear that I don’t subscribe to that premise, but an ethical relativist would seem to be advocating it merely in holding a relativist position.

An ethical relativist appears to be claiming that ethical principles are dependent upon the determination of moral agents. Thus, such a claim would entail that what an agent believes to be right or wrong is right or wrong for that agent but that agent has no “right” to insist that their determination applies to other moral agents. Ethical determinations are, then, tied directly to the rational determination of the moral agent. Since determinations are will dependent, that is, they must be assented to only after the “will dependent” process of reasoning by the agent. Therefore, ultimately, ethical principles can only be decided by the determination of the will of a moral agent and nothing more.

However, I suspect there is a distinction to be made between what obligates a moral agent and what a moral agent bears responsibility for. Ethical principles may obligate moral agents even when these agents are not fully aware of the obligation. Which essentially means that ethical principles are obligatory, independent of the determination of moral agents.

It is perhaps by confusing or ignoring the difference between obligation and responsibility that moral relativism has some degree of plausibility.

I may be obligated to act in a specific manner because of what I am - a rational moral agent - even when my awareness of my obligation is lacking. So, for example, a drunk behind the wheel of a car is still obligated to drive responsibly even when s/he is unaware of that obligation. Responsibility is another, and separate, consideration.

If the reason an inebriated driver is in the state they are in is because of a sequence of irresponsible choices, then they also bear responsibility for failing to live up to their obligation, whether or not they are aware of it.

However, say, the person was drugged by someone else into their incapacitated state, then while an obligation to drive responsibly remains incumbent upon them, the responsibility for failing to live up to the obligation does not.

 

[Bradski]

The need would be this: if it’s true that God exists, you would need to find this out.

To be a perfect moral person, why would I need to do that? As Pascal said: Act as if you believe and belief will come. If I act as if I believe and act perfectly morally as far as, let’s say Catholicism goes, how would I differ, as far as morality goes, between the time that I don’t believe and the time that I do?

What moral acts would you do as a Christian that an atheist would not? Or what immoral acts would you not do on the same basis?

 

[PRmerger]

To be a perfect moral person, why would I need to do that?

As I’ve said,* over and over on the CAFs* (but not necessarily to you, although I am certain that I’ve told you this at least twice): you do not need to believe in God to be a perfect moral person.

You don’t need to acknowledge Him in order to follow His laws.

It is only when you wish to speak up for another person or denounce a behavior as immoral that you need to appeal to an argument for the existence of God.

Otherwise, this person who is practicing a behavior of great odium will simply say, “Well, who are you to tell me that this is contemptuous behavior? I happen to think that it’s absolutely fine to picket at dead soldiers’ funerals”.

And you will be in an otiose position. :sad_yes:

 

[Bradski]

Be clear that I don’t subscribe to that premise, but an ethical relativist would seem to be advocating it merely in holding a relativist position.

I don’t agree. If I was simply obligated by my own will and nothing more, then indeed ‘anything goes’. Which is what a lot of religious people think. But I feel shame the same everyone else. I also feel guilt and embarrassment. I suffer from pride. I have a sense of my own dignity and an appreciation that others have this sense as well. These are natural feelings, some of which we try to avoid and some which we enjoy. I also have empathy, which again is entirely natural in reasonably well adjusted people. I also appreciate the Golden Rule (it’s not religiously based).

Therefore, ultimately, ethical principles can only be decided by the determination of the will of a moral agent and nothing more.

OK, I might go with that.

Ethical principles may obligate moral agents even when these agents are not fully aware of the obligation. Which essentially means that ethical principles are obligatory, independent of the determination of moral agents.

But here I think I disagree. You seem to be saying that an act could be evil without a person realising it. You have to be aware of the facts otherwise it can’t be classed as evil. If no-one existed, then good acts and evil acts would not exist. They are dependent on moral agents. A man cannot be an evil man unless he knowingly commits an evil act. You cannot ‘accidently’ perform a good act. You have to have determined to perform it.

I may be obligated to act in a specific manner because of what I am - a rational moral agent - even when my awareness of my obligation is lacking. So, for example, a drunk behind the wheel of a car is still obligated to drive responsibly even when s/he is unaware of that obligation. Responsibility is another, and separate, consideration.

I don’t think that’s a good example. Your obligation is not to drive responsibly when drunk. Your responsibility is not to drive. Period. You are in full possession of all the facts and you can make a decision to drive or not. If you do and kill someone, you are culpable. If someone drugs you, you are not aware of the facts and so are not culpable. But you need to be able to make that determination.

 

[PRmerger]

What moral acts would you do as a Christian that an atheist would not? Or what immoral acts would you not do on the same basis?

One magnificent one is this: you would not give your life for a stranger out of complete love, as Maximilian Kolbe did.

There is no atheist who has done the equivalent of this sublime act of love for a perfect stranger.

Now, to be sure, atheists have been heroes, and have sacrificed their lives for others.

But not in the same profound and magnificent act of love as done by this saint.

So atheists can be good and nice and kind. But they can’t demonstrate complete, utter, sacrificial love for a stranger.

You need God’s grace in you for that.

 

[Bradski]

As I’ve said,* over and over on the CAFs* (but not necessarily to you, although I am certain that I’ve told you this at least twice): you do not need to believe in God to be a perfect moral person.

You don’t need to acknowledge Him in order to follow His laws.

I think that you might have said in waaaay back in this thread. It’s been going on for some time. Maybe we’re repeating ourselves. I then seem to remember at one point saying that we seemed to have agreed on the question posed in the OP: Yes,
there is morality without God.

Do you have a Groundhog Day clip?

 

[PRmerger]

I think that you might have said in waaaay back in this thread. It’s been going on for some time. Maybe we’re repeating ourselves. I then seem to remember at one point saying that we seemed to have agreed on the question posed in the OP: Yes,
there is morality without God.

Yep. Pretty much.

But, again, there is a desire in the human heart to know the truth…and that is why we believe in God.

Not because belief in God makes us moral.

But because it’s true.

Do you have a Groundhog Day clip?

Heh. Sadly, no.

 

[ccmnxc]

I don’t feel like looking through 81 pages. Has the Euthyphro Dilemma been discussed yet?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t feel like looking through 81 pages. Has the Euthyphro Dilemma been discussed yet?

No, I don’t believe it has.

 

[ccmnxc]

No, I don’t believe it has.

Okay. Sorry if I am derailing the conversation. I just think that we need to account for objective morals (of course atheists can have subjective morals) on theism before we go telling off the atheists for having no standard.