On the Goodness of God

[Spock]

You’re correct, I do use the word “objective” as being the same “absolute” or “universal”.

Very useful to clarify the meaning of these words. The objective is the antynom of subjective. Absolute’s antynom is relative. These words do not mean the same thing, not by a long shot, and they should not be confused.

I do see the absolute morality as having a genuine existence independent of the “morals” of any human society. It could be seen as analogous with the abstract Platonic realm for real mathematical truths.

Well, I disagree. Morality is not about facts (mathematical or otherwise) they are about “oughts”. Do you really think that the negative assessment of public nudity has been “discovered” by the current Western societies, but it is still “undiscovered” by simple tribes in the tropical climates? That the “nudist colonies” thumb their nose at the “absolute” morality?

I’d say that objective morality has the same relationship to men, our society may have discovered that cannibalism is evil and some other society on an island in the south pacific may have no knowledge of this universal truth, but just because they have no knowledge of it that doesn’t negate it’s truth.

Do you remember the plane crash in the Andes on October 13, 1972? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571 Those surviviors had to resort to cannibalism to survive. I don’t know about anyone who would have decried their action as “immoral”. Marriage between brothers and sisters used to be acceptable, until medical science discovered the harmful effects on the progeny. Starting from that time, this practice became immoral.

When you take off your atheist thinking hat, you “remember” these universal truths and forget the materialistic “explanations” for how all morals are evolved, contingent on quid pro quos, societies, and biological traits.

Why should I do that? You did not bring up any rational arguments against them.

Earlier in the thread to forgot these reductionist materialistic explanations and spoke as if a objective moral justice is real. It’s like a cloud was being lifted from your veiw.

Did you already forget now that I am not using “objective” as a synonym of “absolute”?

 

[Tonitz]

Spock, I understand your reason for equating “objective” and “absolute.” I would argue that there is a further subtle distinction that your frame of thinking might understand. If you are interested, PM me.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Well, I disagree. Morality is not about facts (mathematical or otherwise) they are about “oughts”. Do you really think that the negative assessment of public nudity has been “discovered” by the current Western societies, but it is still “undiscovered” by simple tribes in the tropical climates? That the “nudist colonies” thumb their nose at the “absolute” morality?

I don’t think the perfect goodness (much like Plato’s forms) that stands as a template for all morality that we strive to follow while fitting our actions to individual situations is simply a rule book of “Never do this and Always do that”. The classic example of stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is an example of aiming at that higher morality. Now if your society has laws about public nudity, and that law itself isn’t immoral, then it’s the breaking of that public law is the moral wrong. Just as going 70 miles a hour on the highway isn’t in itself immoral wrong, it’s the giving of the finger to the public law of your society that is wrong (again, assuming the publiv law itself isn’t immoral).

Do you remember the plane crash in the Andes on October 13, 1972? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571 Those surviviors had to resort to cannibalism to survive. I don’t know about anyone who would have decried their action as “immoral”. Marriage between brothers and sisters used to be acceptable, until medical science discovered the harmful effects on the progeny. Starting from that time, this practice became immoral.

Eating the meat of the already dead plane crash victims to stay alive is not the cannibalism we’re talking about, how about finding an actual case of people killing people to eat them where you “don’t know about anyone who would have decried their action as immoral"? Apples and Oranges.

Why should I do that? You did not bring up any rational arguments against them.

I’m not asking you to do that, you DID do that, you spoke about morally unjustified suffering in humans and animals as if you were discussing an “absolute” or "universal” (I’ll drop “objective” if it’ll make you happy) moral code and not some totally contingent code dependant on the whims of a society. That’s the nobel thing about many atheists, they forget their reductionist “explanations” when they see moral injustices.

 

[Spock]

Spock, I understand your reason for equating “objective” and “absolute.”

Hold it, buddy. I do not equate them. I say that they are completely different.

 

[Spock]

The classic example of stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is an example of aiming at that higher morality.

Yes, that is an excellent example of “relativistic” morality. The “absolute” rule would say: “stealing is wrong, under any and all circumstances, no exceptions”. What you say (and I agree) is “stealing is generally wrong in those societies which respect the concept of ownership, but under some circumstances it is right”. I definitely agree that there are hierarchies of morally charged problems.

Now if your society has laws about public nudity, and that law itself isn’t immoral, then it’s the breaking of that public law is the moral wrong.

You just “postponed” the problem. How do you decide if the law against public nudity is morally right or wrong? That is the crux of the problem. Also, you seem to have bypassed the real question. Assuming that the laws against public nudity are “morally right” (and I am itching to see how you are going to resolve that), what about those tribal societies where no such “laws” exist?

If you say that in those societies it is not immoral to be nude, and maintain that the laws in our societies make public nudity immoral, then you must accept that morals are dependent on the prevailing social customs (reflected by the laws). And let’s not forget something: “laws” are (unfortunately) arbitrary, they are the product of the current rulers. Even if those rulers are legally and democratically elected politicians.

Eating the meat of the already dead plane crash victims to stay alive is not the cannibalism we’re talking about, how about finding an actual case of people killing people to eat them where you “don’t know about anyone who would have decried their action as immoral"?

As far as I know cannibalism simply says the eating of human flesh. There is no prerequisite of killing.

I’m not asking you to do that, you DID do that, you spoke about morally unjustified suffering in humans and animals as if you were discussing an “absolute” or "universal” (I’ll drop “objective” if it’ll make you happy) moral code and not some totally contingent code dependant on the whims of a society. That’s the nobel thing about many atheists, they forget their reductionist “explanations” when they see moral injustices.

We both are the products of our genes and our upbringing. I would surmise that our upbringing had a lot of similarities. Take an example of “lying”, telling a false statement. Generally lying is considered “immoral”. How about “white” lies? When someone does not tell the whle truth, or distorts some of the truth, to spare someone else? If there is an “absolute” morality, then telling lies is always wrong. What are your views on this?

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Yes, that is an excellent example of “relativistic” morality. The “absolute” rule would say: “stealing is wrong, under any and all circumstances, no exceptions”. What you say (and I agree) is “stealing is generally wrong in those societies which respect the concept of ownership, but under some circumstances it is right”. I definitely agree that there are hierarchies of morally charged problems.

You just “postponed” the problem. How do you decide if the law against public nudity is morally right or wrong? That is the crux of the problem. Also, you seem to have bypassed the real question. Assuming that the laws against public nudity are “morally right” (and I am itching to see how you are going to resolve that), what about those tribal societies where no such “laws” exist?

If you say that in those societies it is not immoral to be nude, and maintain that the laws in our societies make public nudity immoral, then you must accept that morals are dependent on the prevailing social customs (reflected by the laws). And let’s not forget something: “laws” are (unfortunately) arbitrary, they are the product of the current rulers. Even if those rulers are legally and democratically elected politicians.

As far as I know cannibalism simply says the eating of human flesh. There is no prerequisite of killing.

We both are the products of our genes and our upbringing. I would surmise that our upbringing had a lot of similarities. Take an example of “lying”, telling a false statement. Generally lying is considered “immoral”. How about “white” lies? When someone does not tell the whle truth, or distorts some of the truth, to spare someone else? If there is an “absolute” morality, then telling lies is always wrong. What are your views on this?

Come on Spock, at least three times here you present a strawman about a morality where things must be in black and white and so and so action is considered “always wrong” and yet, the only statement of mine in that post which you did not quote (on purpose?) is my very first statement “I don’t think the perfect goodness (much like Plato’s forms) that stands as a template for all morality that we strive to follow while fitting our actions to individual situations is simply a rule book of “Never do this and Always do that”.”

If you’re going to just ignore statements I’ve made that clearly show that I believe correct moral decisions are derivative of a higher moral goodness, one that isn’t simply a black and white rule book, but instead supercedes general “never do this, always do that” general rules, then what’s the point in my explaining it?

 

[Spock]

Come on Spock, at least three times here you present a strawman about a morality where things must be in black and white and so and so action is considered “always wrong” and yet, the only statement of mine in that post which you did not quote (on purpose?) is my very first statement “I don’t think the perfect goodness (much like Plato’s forms) that stands as a template for all morality that we strive to follow while fitting our actions to individual situations is simply a rule book of “Never do this and Always do that”.”

If you’re going to just ignore statements I’ve made that clearly show that I believe correct moral decisions are derivative of a higher moral goodness, one that isn’t simply a black and white rule book, but instead supercedes general “never do this, always do that” general rules, then what’s the point in my explaining it?

Sorry. I did not explicitly quote it back. So what is your definition of “absolute” morality and how does it apply to the specific questions I posited? By the way, other posters did say before that “stealing is always immoral, and there are no exceptions”. I am glad to see that you do not agree with them.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Sorry. I did not explicitly quote it back. So what is your definition of “absolute” morality and how does it apply to the specific questions I posited? By the way, other posters did say before that “stealing is always immoral, and there are no exceptions”. I am glad to see that you do not agree with them.

My explanation is that there is an absolute goodness that serves as the source or template of all less than perfect human attempts to emulate that perfect moral realm. I really think it can be looked at as analogous to the Platonic realm of idealized forms. So we can say that with regard to the act of deciding that instead of having a cheeseburger for dinner tonight, that we’ll try something novel and kill our next door neighbor and eat him, that this act in regard to that absolute source of moral judgments, is truly evil. Not merely an evolved societal convention founded in an implied quid pro quo of “I won’t eat you if you won’t eat me”, but is an objectively evil act. While in an entirely different situation with respect to the absolute morality, such as the situation of a soccer team of plane crash survivors in the snowed filled peaks of the Andes Mountains and facing certain death by starvation, it would not be an evil act for them to survive on the remains of already dead passengers preserved in the snow.

The point is, that in these different moral situations there is a source of morality that lays beyond social conventions. And even if the social convention had it that it’s OK to murder your neighbor and eat him, according to that absolute morality it would still be an evil act, one that that society hasn’t grasped yet and thus remained in moral depravity. Some societies have advanced into a closer knowledge of the absolute morality, just as some have advanced to a better knowledge of mathematics, again analogous to the Plato’s abstract realm of real mathematical truths. This is how we can have the situation of you earlier in this thread appearing to have forgotten your reductionist “explanations” of where the foundation of morals supposedly reside and instead being upset with all the “morally unjustified suffering” of both man and animals in the world, which of course has no place in the totally contingent quid pro quo derived explanations of “morality”.

 

[Spock]

My explanation is that there is an absolute goodness that serves as the source or template of all less than perfect human attempts to emulate that perfect moral realm.

This could be an acceptable starting point. I just don’t see what it might be, unless you posit God as the source of this “absolute goodness”. If you do, then this conversation ceases to be a philosophical one, it will become a theological one. And, of course, I will reject it on the grounds that it is an unproven, unsupported idea. If your “absolute morality” is dependent upon God, than it is worthless to any atheist.

I really think it can be looked at as analogous to the Platonic realm of idealized forms. So we can say that with regard to the act of deciding that instead of having a cheeseburger for dinner tonight, that we’ll try something novel and kill our next door neighbor and eat him, that this act in regard to that absolute source of moral judgments, is truly evil.

Again, what you miss is to define what that “absolute source” would be.

The point is, that in these different moral situations there is a source of morality that lays beyond social conventions.

What is it? And where does it come from?

How do you decide if public nudity, or a public act of procreation are immoral behaviors?

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

This could be an acceptable starting point. I just don’t see what it might be, unless you posit God as the source of this “absolute goodness”. If you do, then this conversation ceases to be a philosophical one, it will become a theological one. And, of course, I will reject it on the grounds that it is an unproven, unsupported idea. If your “absolute morality” is dependent upon God, than it is worthless to any atheist.

Again, what you miss is to define what that “absolute source” would be.

What is it? And where does it come from?

How do you decide if public nudity, or a public act of procreation are immoral behaviors?

I guess as a first step, you’d need to decide, that feeling of revulsion you feel towards the moral act of someone killing and then eating their neighbor, is that an insight into a real moral injustice, or is it just the end result of your conditioning by societal norms? Do we consider cannibals “morally depraved”, or is their morality just as valid as ours, and merely different? And if we feel these beliefs in genuine “moral truths”, independent of the subjective social convensions of individual societies, we need to ask where these higher moral truths reside. All I know is the reductionist explanations don’t work for me. But everyone is different, who knows.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock
**
If your “absolute morality” is dependent upon God, than it is worthless to any atheist. **

Well, you seem to have forgotten that this thread is about the goodness of God, not whether God exists. God is presupposed to exist, before we can talk about His goodness.

Ronnie was in line with the point of this thread, you are not.

However, Ronnie’s point about Plato is well taken. Even without God there might still be an absolute source of Good by which we can measure all other goods. Plato might call his source Ideas. I think Carl Jung called them Archetypes. The atheist Ayn Rand was an objectivist, and asserted that good and evil could be objectively found through the exercise of Reason. I don’t think she was wrong, but the only problem with that solution is that you cannot build consensus on what is morally good by Reason alone. Too many people disagree about what is right and wrong, too many people will make Reason suit their passions, and too many people can’t reason their way out of a paper bag.

 

[Spock]

I guess as a first step, you’d need to decide, that feeling of revulsion you feel towards the moral act of someone killing and then eating their neighbor, is that an insight into a real moral injustice, or is it just the end result of your conditioning by societal norms? Do we consider cannibals “morally depraved”, or is their morality just as valid as ours, and merely different? And if we feel these beliefs in genuine “moral truths”, independent of the subjective social convensions of individual societies, we need to ask where these higher moral truths reside. All I know is the reductionist explanations don’t work for me. But everyone is different, who knows.

Well said. You summarized my views correctly. I argue that the revulsion is learned during the grow-up process. In our formative years our parents and environment instill in us the societal norms of acceptable behavior. Let me offer the definition of morality: “it is the set of written and unwritten rules, which define the socially accepted behavior”. The written ones are the laws. The rest we learn during our grow up process.

Maybe you disagree even with the definition. I don’t know just how do you define “morality”. So, if you care, start explaining.

Just a suggestion. Don’t concentrate only of murder and cannibalism. Include - for example - pornography, too. Which is closely related to nudity in many places.

 

[Spock]

Well, you seem to have forgotten that this thread is about the goodness of God, not whether God exists. God is presupposed to exist, before we can talk about His goodness.

The thread is drifting.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Spock
**
If your “absolute morality” is dependent upon God, than it is worthless to any atheist. **

Well, you seem to have forgotten that this thread is about the goodness of God, not whether God exists. God is presupposed to exist, before we can talk about His goodness.

Ronnie was in line with the point of this thread, you are not.

However, Ronnie’s point about Plato is well taken. Even without God there might still be an absolute source of Good by which we can measure all other goods. Plato might call his source Ideas. I think Carl Jung called them Archetypes. The atheist Ayn Rand was an objectivist, and asserted that good and evil could be objectively found through the exercise of Reason. I don’t think she was wrong, but the only problem with that solution is that you cannot build consensus on what is morally good by Reason alone. Too many people disagree about what is right and wrong, too many people will make Reason suit their passions, and too many people can’t reason their way out of a paper bag.

Btw Charlemagne, as a Catholic I do associate the absolute goodness that serves as a template for all human moral judgements with God. It is here that I believe Plato’s idealized realm of perfect forms merges with Aquinas’ fourth way en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_degree

Can we “prove” this? Probably not, but it makes a lot more sense to me than thinking eating your next door neighbor is only considered “wrong” because of totally contingent societal quid pro quos