Why should one follow the moral law?

[reggieM]

This is a philosophical/theological difference that is not a difference at all in practive when we try to justify our actions to others.

Trying to justify one’s actions to others is a different topic. In this case, you’re using “others” as the judge of the actions. There is a difference in using a human community versus God. Yes, it’s a philosophical difference because this is a philosophical question. The need to justify one’s behavior to others is a philosophical one. If a person has enough money and weapons, for example, there’s little reason to justify actions.

Both of us have to choose what we think is right and say why we think so, and neither of us gets any mileage out of claiming to have a foundation for their beliefs.

In practice, when one refers to a higher law that is an external reference that is different than a subjective judgement. While there is some interpretation involved, one can refer to something outside of the person’s own mind.

The believer says “I believe X is right beacause I think that God wills it, and God is the ultimate authority,” but then she still needs to justify why she believes that X is what God wills. Others can simply say, “I don’t believe you have any special access to God’s will that I don’t have.” The believer’s so-called foundation has just failed to provide her with a knock-down argument in that conversation. She will need to convince others of her view in all the usual conversational ways.

The atheist can say “I believe X is right because that’s the way I feel (or ‘I was determined by DNA to believe that’)” But there is no reference point to discuss.

The nonbeliever just says, “I believe Y is right for these reasons…” We are both in the position of giving our reasons to others and neither of us has a more solid foundation for doing that than the other.

But the non-believer does not need to give reasons for behavior. That’s the first problem. The non-believer is imagining that the “others” that you mentioned are the right judge of morality. The fact that the non-believer cares about such things is a refutation of materialist-determinism, for one thing. But the non-believer is still pointing to some kind of goal or purpose to life, by needing to explain behavior. There is a higher purpose of some kind – but that needs to be defined.

The only way it could help you to claim that “God wills it” is if you can convince others that you really do have some special access to God’s will that they don’t have.

References to revealed texts and teachings do convince many people. As I said, in atheistic materalism there is no need for arguments. What purpose to they serve?

You are basically saying that believers have an advantage because they are right.

No, I said that believers have an advantage because they have a reference point for moral decisions. I cannot argue about the source of your moral ideas if they are possessed in your mind. Those remain invisible.

 

[Leela]

Trying to justify one’s actions to others is a different topic. In this case, you’re using “others” as the judge of the actions. There is a difference in using a human community versus God. Yes, it’s a philosophical difference because this is a philosophical question. The need to justify one’s behavior to others is a philosophical one. If a person has enough money and weapons, for example, there’s little reason to justify actions.

I’m not using any quotational “others” as the standard by which we judge behavior. In our conversation, the other I’m talking about is just you and the other that you need to talk about is just me. I can’t see how you have advantage in our conversation by claiming that your view is supported by God’s authority. I simply don’t believe you. I don’t think you have access to any special knowldege that I don’t have access to.

In practice, when one refers to a higher law that is an external reference that is different than a subjective judgement. While there is some interpretation involved, one can refer to something outside of the person’s own mind.

We can both refer to things outside our own minds. We both need to point to reality. But, if I try to point to a reality that you don’t think exists, what good does it do to point to it?

Neither one of us has a foundation to point to that will provide knockdown arguments in our conversations with one another. In our conversation, the only reference points are whatever stories we can tell one anpother that we can both relate to. The difference is, if you are talking with another Christian, then you can point to some stories that simply won’t do any good pointing to when conversing with me. Those stories give you no advantage in conversations with nonbelievers.

But the non-believer does not need to give reasons for behavior. That’s the first problem. The non-believer is imagining that the “others” that you mentioned are the right judge of morality. The fact that the non-believer cares about such things is a refutation of materialist-determinism, for one thing. But the non-believer is still pointing to some kind of goal or purpose to life, by needing to explain behavior. There is a higher purpose of some kind – but that needs to be defined.

References to revealed texts and teachings do convince many people. As I said, in atheistic materalism there is no need for arguments. What purpose to they serve?

If I want to convince others to join me in certain projects then I need to convince them that those projects are worthy. (All the stuff about materialism and determinism are irrelevent. I don’t subscribe to such positions.)

I should be obvious based on the above that your God remains just as invisible to me as the source of my moral ideas is to you. So again, your claims to know the will of God have no advantage in practice when it comes to justifying your beliefs to others who do not already share them.

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

I should be obvious based on the above that your God remains just as invisible to me as the source of my moral ideas is to you.

Why do you think that is obvious? I can point to moral norms which I use to make decisions. I can explain those norms and comment on the origin of them and provide evidence for why I believe they are correct. I can also point to millions of people who accept the same norms for the same reasons from the same source.

Your moral norms are private to you. They are not sourced from a fixed reference point. I can’t tell if your norms are consistent with your own values or not, since all of that is invisible. The fact that people can state that some action is “not consistent with Catholicism” proves the difference here.

Of course, you can accept or deny anything you would like. I have stated that the ultimate judge of things is God. You disagree with this. Who do you think the ultimate judge is and why?

 

[Oreoracle]

Of course, you can accept or deny anything you would like. I have stated that the ultimate judge of things is God. You disagree with this. Who do you think the ultimate judge is and why?

For most “non-believers” it is not a question of who, but rather what. And you have not answered why your point of reference is God. Could it be an emotion telling you to value him, hmm?

 

[reggieM]

For most “non-believers” it is not a question of who, but rather what. And you have not answered why your point of reference is God. Could it be an emotion telling you to value him, hmm?

One reason my point of reference is God, is because the alternatives are absurd and false. First, I notice that you provided no answer.

We could take the Holocaust as a moral evil. In materalistic-atheist terms, there is no basis in which to condemn the Holocaust.

If there is no Judge and morals “emerge from the community” – the community of Nazis wanted to kill the Jews, thus the Holocaust is justified on that basis.

If morals emerge from the individual – then Hitler was justified.

That’s the first problem. If there is no God, then the law-giver and arbiter of the laws are human beings alone. In this case, *might makes right *and we see evidence of that. There is no higher law to appeal to.

God provides a higher law – above human authority. We can appeal to eternal principles of good which are higher than the imperfections of human judgements.

 

[Oreoracle]

One reason my point of reference is God, is because the alternatives are absurd and false. First, I notice that you provided no answer.

We could take the Holocaust as a moral evil. In materalistic-atheist terms, there is no basis in which to condemn the Holocaust.

If there is no Judge and morals “emerge from the community” – the community of Nazis wanted to kill the Jews, thus the Holocaust is justified on that basis.

If morals emerge from the individual – then Hitler was justified.

That’s the first problem. If there is no God, then the law-giver and arbiter of the laws are human beings alone. In this case, *might makes right *and we see evidence of that. There is no higher law to appeal to.

God provides a higher law – above human authority. We can appeal to eternal principles of good which are higher than the imperfections of human judgements.

Sounds like a lovely emotional answer (the alternatives may be brutal, but not “false” as you say). I believe you wanted my answer? It’s quite simple. I understand that all conscious actions are motivated by the desire for happiness. Even your obedience to God is done for the sake of a sort of spiritual happiness. If an action fails to pleasure someone, they will discontinue the action, at least consciously. If suffering is the result of an action, one will attempt to avoid it. Given this, I support the greatest happiness principle of utilitarianism: what is best is what provides the greatest increase in the general happiness (sum of the happiness of sentient beings). Good enough for you?

 

[JDaniel]

Sounds like a lovely emotional answer (the alternatives may be brutal, but not “false” as you say). I believe you wanted my answer? It’s quite simple. I understand that all conscious actions are motivated by the desire for happiness. Even your obedience to God is done for the sake of a sort of spiritual happiness. If an action fails to pleasure someone, they will discontinue the action, at least consciously. If suffering is the result of an action, one will attempt to avoid it. Given this, I support the greatest happiness principle of utilitarianism: what is best is what provides the greatest increase in the general happiness (sum of the happiness of sentient beings). Good enough for you?

Oreoracle, are you still trying to justify and hold onto the belief that one’s own utilitarian happiness should be the core, personal motivation for “good” actions? What if it made someone very happy to grab you, hold you down and punch you in the face each and every time they saw you walking down your block? How many times would they get to do that to you until it made you happier to shoot them? All of a sudden, your “happy” is greater that his “happy”. But, why?

For one of you, it’s the enjoyment and pleasure he gets from punching the crud out of you. For you, it’s the avoidance of pain. Those are insufficient principles for both of you. Do you see why an extramental moral guide would be preferable and why it should be enforced by the morality codified as a set of laws?

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

Oreoracle, are you still trying to justify and hold onto the belief that one’s own utilitarian happiness should be the core, personal motivation for “good” actions? What if it made someone very happy to grab you, hold you down and punch you in the face each and every time they saw you walking down your block? How many times would they get to do that to you until it made you happier to shoot them? All of a sudden, your “happy” is greater that his “happy”. But, why?

For one of you, it’s the enjoyment and pleasure he gets from punching the crud out of you. For you, it’s the avoidance of pain. Those are insufficient principles for both of you. Do you see why an extramental moral guide would be preferable and why it should be enforced by the morality codified as a set of laws?

jd

No offense, JDaniel, but you’re reducing the principle to something it’s not. Do you really think someone would gather more pleasure from punching me than I would pain? Even if it were so, that doesn’t account for the long-term results of getting beaten to a pulp. If I die, all the happiness I would have felt disappears. If I am severely injured, my impairment would cause me great suffering, not to mention limit my ability to work for others and satisfy them. There are many more factors than what you’re considering.

 

[JDaniel]

No offense, JDaniel, but you’re reducing the principle to something it’s not. Do you really think someone would gather more pleasure from punching me than I would pain? Even if it were so, that doesn’t account for the long-term results of getting beaten to a pulp. If I die, all the happiness I would have felt disappears. If I am severely injured, my impairment would cause me great suffering, not to mention limit my ability to work for others and satisfy them. There are many more factors than what you’re considering.

But, I wasn’t talking about your happiness! Clearly, I was talking about his happiness. Do you not think that this sort of occurrence does not happen daily? Do you not think that someone is made happy because that person is beating up some other person daily?

If I am the “beater”, none of those other “factors” has any significant meaning to me.

jd

 

[Leela]

Hi reggieM,

I said,
“It should be obvious based on the above that your God remains just as invisible to me as the source of my moral ideas is to you.”

Why do you think that is obvious? I can point to moral norms which I use to make decisions. I can explain those norms and comment on the origin of them and provide evidence for why I believe they are correct. I can also point to millions of people who accept the same norms for the same reasons from the same source.

I’m sure we would point to the same moral norms for the most part. Neither of us thinks it’s good to steal, rape, enslave people, etc. But the issue is the SOURCE of these norms. You claim that your invisible God is the source. I say that such a claim is irrelevant to any discussion where people disagree about what is right. Claiming, “God says so” doesn’t win any arguments with people who originally disagreed with you, especially with ones who follow a different religion or who don’t believe in God at all.

You say that you could argue why you think your norms are correct, and I believe you. But your convincing arguments won’t be the ones that start with “God’s will is…” since if we don’t already agree, your say-so that God says-so won’t help. You will need to make a case for your moral concerns in the same way that I do–by finding out where we agree and drawing parallels between old ideas and new ones, by re-describing our shared experiences in new ways to help the other see things from a new perspective, and by telling stories.

Your moral norms are private to you. They are not sourced from a fixed reference point. I can’t tell if your norms are consistent with your own values or not, since all of that is invisible. The fact that people can state that some action is “not consistent with Catholicism” proves the difference here.

You are right that is easier for me to have these conversations here because If I see that the person I am conversing with identifies as Catholic, I have a very good idea where they stand on a given issue. So it helps me to argue my side since I can already anticipate the opposing view and what arguments they will make. But this is an advantage for me. What you have claimed is that you are at an advantage for being able to point to God as the source of your morals while I can’t. I still see no advantage there. And pointing to the church as a fixed reference point may be helpful for you in your private decisions or in discussions with other Catholics, but the fact that the Church’s ideas are fixed doesn’t impress the non-Catholic. It doesn’t make their ideas right. In fact, the Church’s lack of openness to new ideas makes them look to me to be more likely to be wrong. Science has demonstrated that the pencil in mightier than the pen. Imagine if science clung to thousand year old dogma.

Of course, you can accept or deny anything you would like. I have stated that the ultimate judge of things is God. You disagree with this. Who do you think the ultimate judge is and why?

Here you go begging the question again. Who created moral norms if not “the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker”, right? By definition, “the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker” must have made them. But why must we imagine some ultimate judge for morality to have meaning in the first place? If morality is an issue of not angering God, then there must be a judge, but if morality is the term we use to describe our concerns for others, then we need not think of there being a judge that stands outside the world and says what we ought to do.

Best,
Leela

 

[Oreoracle]

But, I wasn’t talking about your happiness! Clearly, I was talking about his happiness. Do you not think that this sort of occurrence does not happen daily? Do you not think that someone is made happy because that person is beating up some other person daily?

If I am the “beater”, none of those other “factors” has any significant meaning to me.

jd

Sorry, I see what the problem is now. See, most Christians have the idea of rights (“I deserve” statements). So they’ll ask us whose happiness is most important. However, utilitarianism promotes the maximization of the general happiness (or, in extreme views, whatever will offer the most happiness period). It doesn’t matter whose happiness it is, just that its happiness, which is seen as inherently good. Thus, if your hypothetical bully reduced the sum of the happiness of all sentient beings by punching me, the action was wrong. Just remember that this is not a “me” philosophy" or a “them” philosophy, but rather an “it” philosophy in its purest form.

 

[Thales]

I should be obvious based on the above that your God remains just as invisible to me as the source of my moral ideas is to you. So again, your claims to know the will of God have no advantage in practice when it comes to justifying your beliefs to others who do not already share them.

This is a problem, and I’ve tried my hardest to appeal to the atheist without invoking God as always the end (or beginning) cause, instead trying to rationally and logically arrive at how and why the way things work point to God’s existance, and not that things are simply because of God or becasue He made it so. You will never accept an argument assuming the later because the atheist rejects the premise or the presumtion. We both reject eachother’s premises, as you say.

Where then can we start this discussion over, on grounds we can all agree upon? It seems to me, all these threads where the atheists are pit against theists, devolve to this point.

I don’t think the either side starts off with the advantage. The atheist thinks so because they don’t believe they are presuming anything. But in this world where it seems reality and existance can’t be established definatively, the atheist has no upper hand in non-beleiving any more than the theist has in believing.

 

[Leela]

This is a problem, and I’ve tried my hardest to appeal to the atheist without invoking God as always the end (or beginning) cause, instead trying to rationally and logically arrive at how and why the way things work point to God’s existance, and not that things are simply because of God or becasue He made it so. You will never accept an argument assuming the later because the atheist rejects the premise or the presumtion. We both reject eachother’s premises, as you say.

Where then can we start this discussion over, on grounds we can all agree upon? It seems to me, all these threads where the atheists are pit against theists, devolve to this point.

I don’t think the either side starts off with the advantage. The atheist thinks so because they don’t believe they are presuming anything. But in this world where it seems reality and existance can’t be established definatively, the atheist has no upper hand in non-beleiving any more than the theist has in believing.

I don’t think either the believer or the atheist has any advantage over the other either. Both has to try to find contexts that the other can relate to. But I also think too much is made about the differences between atheists and believers in their moral positions. It is natural that our discussions focus on our differences but we also have so much in common. At the same time, there are a lot of differences in the views between believers and other believers and atheists and other atheists. I wonder if the within group differences are much smaller than the between group differences. It depends on the issue I suppose.

What moral positions do you think believers are in general agreement about and in general disagreement with nonbelievers?

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

Sorry, I see what the problem is now. See, most Christians have the idea of rights (“I deserve” statements). So they’ll ask us whose happiness is most important. However, utilitarianism promotes the maximization of the general happiness (or, in extreme views, whatever will offer the most happiness period). It doesn’t matter whose happiness it is, just that its happiness, which is seen as inherently good. Thus, if your hypothetical bully reduced the sum of the happiness of all sentient beings by punching me, the action was wrong. Just remember that this is not a “me” philosophy" or a “them” philosophy, but rather an “it” philosophy in its purest form.

But, then, how does one extrapolate that sentiment into the real world? How would/could codified laws be constructed? Where are the “absolutes?” What are the “absolutes?” How could we get people to agree? By polling them? What if we get, from the poll, 50.01% for and 49.99 % against? Who’s to say that the majority rules? If said, why?

If “happiness is seen as inherently good” how on earth can we have happiness that is inherently bad? There would have to be quite a number of aberrant people running loose out there. I like our present system much better. I want aberrant people locked up, or, at least in front of a judge who is exercising our current set of standards. But, that’s just me.

jd

 

[tonyrey]

I like to try to get my ideas to hang together like everyone else, so I value consistency. I’m just pointing out that self-consistent philosophical systems are a dime a dozen, so we don’t get far by claiming that our system is self-consistent.

There are other criteria of philosophical systems apart from consistency, e.g. simplicity, adequacy and fertility.

As for my interpretation of reality, I don’t think that any one description of reality can ever hope to represent “The Way Things Really Are.” The philosophical project of trying to represent reality verbally to find the one true description is one we’d be better off giving up on.

Leela, you’re an extremist It is absurd to think we can ever achieve a complete description of reality but to give up all attempt to describe reality is equally absurd. Whether we like it or not we are compelled to make assumptions about reality, e.g. persons are different from things. It is better to acknowledge our assumptions rather than pretend they don’t exist! Not only that. Our scheme of things is evident from what we omit. If, for example, we never refer to God in our statements, we obviously don’t believe such a factor is relevant - which is tantamount to denying it exists.

Antiessentialists recommend thinking of everything the way we think of numbers because it is very hard to think of a number as having an essence.

That seems like wishful thinking! Antiessentialists decide to use numbers as a model for everything, not only things but persons as well. Why? Because it fits their preconceived ideas of reality. It is an arbitary decision because numbers are generally considered to have an existential status quite different from physical objects and persons. Do you think of yourself as a number? I certainly don’t!

It is a revealled truth for the Mormoms and Muslims that Christianity is a false religion just as it is a revealled truth for Christians that Muslims and Mormons have it wrong. The “basic principles” don’t ammount to much when teh question becomes who will be saved from eternal damnation.

It is not a revealed truth for the Mormons and Muslims that Christianity is totally false, or vice-versa. They agree on basic principles which you yourself accept, e.g. the Golden Rule. Only a minority of Christians believe all non-Christians will be damned.

(Every individual has to apply general rules to particular situations and make his/her own decisions. The ultimate authority is our own conscience.)

Exactly. That’s why I can’t see why believers are in any different a position when you say that atheists have a problem in having to decide for themselves what is good.

Believers are in a different position from atheists because they share fundamental beliefs and values. Christians, for example, believe the unborn child has a right to life. If a member of the Church has an abortion she would normally be excommunicated but she still has the right and the obligation to obey the dictates of her conscience. If giving birth would lead to her death and she is convinced it is her duty to have an abortion for the sake of her husband and other children she is morally obliged to have an abortion. In such cases atheists and believers are in the same boat but in most cases atheists rely entirely on their own conscience because they do not recognize any moral authority other than their own.
I haven’t said atheists have a problem in having to decide for themselves what is good! They can pick and take from mankind’s heritage of moral wisdom, without having to acknowledge the source - which is mainly religious. But they are at a disadvantage because they do not belong to a specific moral community. There are relatively recent humanist and secular societies but they do not fulfil the same communal functions as a Church which has existed for centuries. Their only common bond is a negative one: a denial of God and a rejection of religion. Humanism is inadequate even from a non-religious viewpoint. Why confine rights to human beings and exclude animals and persons on other planets?

 

[tonyrey]

The same is true even if there is an objective morality (I.e. rape is wrong because rape is wrong, the definition of a tautology).

Rape is not wrong because rape is wrong. It is wrong because it causes misery and is an infringement of a person’s right to happiness.

The sizable majority of us understand that adherence to the moral consensus is the most direct route to a happy and pleasurable life. Those of us who cannot usually find ourselves at the mercy of our judicial system.

Morality is more than “the moral consensus” and more than “most direct route”. It is the only route to happiness regardless of what the majority believe.

OK then, I guess blame should be assigned to the individual who created the natural laws.

If the natural laws hadn’t been created you wouldn’t be here to complain. Would you prefer not to exist?

In other words, our adherence to a moral code would be the same whether there exists a god or not.

Not at all. It obviously makes a difference if you believe we are the children of a loving Father who is both just and merciful rather than accidents produced by fortuitous combinations of molecules".

Assertion based moral codes:
“God said don’t do that”!
“No he didn’t”!
“Yes he did”!
Ergo: god said don’t do that.

Don’t we teach children to avoid danger?
I

'm more afraid of those who are obsessed with their god.

Say that when you happen to be confonted by a thug. BTW Belief is not obsession. If it is, atheists are obsessed by the non-existence of God.

If you give away your ability to critically examine matters you usually become a devout theist.

If you give away your ability to have an open mind you become trapped in a closed system.

You have ignored my point that if we give way to our lust for power we punish ourselves by alienating ourselves from others and ending up in a state of self-imposed isolation and misery. In other words, we are already in a hell of our own making.

Nazi Germany was almost entirely Catholic and Lutheran (and they elected Hitler and obeyed his every command). Hitler was certainly a theist of some variety and routinely referred to god when addressing the masses and discussing the deserved (in Germany’s eye’s not mine) fate of the Jews. Stalin was an atheist; however the majority of Soviets were still Christian. Japan was lead to do evil by their belief in their emperor-god and the order to drop weapons of mass destruction on two Japanese cities was made by a Christian.

Hitler was a lunatic who terrorized the masses and had Christians exterminated. Stalin was an atheist who sent Christians with countless others to Siberia and turned churches into museums. Do you think the order to drop weapons of mass destruction on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is in accordance with Christian precepts?

 

[severntofall]

Rape is not wrong because rape is wrong. It is wrong because it causes misery and is an infringement of a person’s right to happiness.

Precisely, and we didn’t need a god to figure that out.

Morality is more than “the moral consensus” and more than “most direct route”. It is the only route to happiness regardless of what the majority believe.

Concepts of morality vary from person to person. I agree about the importance of morality (and its enforcement) to our species’ achievement of happiness (as a whole).

If the natural laws hadn’t been created you wouldn’t be here to complain. Would you prefer not to exist?

I would prefer to exist in a natural disaster free environment. Certainly we would have that if it were the will of your creator.

Not at all. It obviously makes a difference if you believe we are the children of a loving Father who is both just and merciful rather than accidents produced by fortuitous combinations of molecules".

There is so much evidence to contradict that claim that it’s ridiculous. So much immorality has been committed in the name of a “loving father” that if every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Belief is not obsession. If it is, atheists are obsessed by the non-existence of God.

Belief is an obsession, and atheists are not obsessed by the non-existence of god.

If you give away your ability to have an open mind you become trapped in a closed system.

An accurate description of most theist I know.

You have ignored my point that if we give way to our lust for power we punish ourselves by alienating ourselves from others and ending up in a state of self-imposed isolation and misery. In other words, we are already in a hell of our own making.

Didn’t miss it, just doesn’t understand how it is relevant to this conversation. Most people with this lust for power you speak of are on your side.

Hitler was a lunatic who terrorized the masses and had Christians exterminated.

He was a lunatic but the rest of what you said is not true. Again, almost his entire nation was composed of Christians and their extermination came at the hands of the Soviets and Allies.

Do you think the order to drop weapons of mass destruction on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is in accordance with Christian precepts?

I meet few Christians who disagree with the decision (I’m sure they exist).

 

[severntofall]

We could take the Holocaust as a moral evil. In materialistic-atheist terms, there is no basis in which to condemn the Holocaust.

Sure there is: our own consensus regarding morality. Saying that you need a god to define right and wrong is like saying that you need god to determine whether apple pie is better than cherry. According to my own personal standards, the holocaust was a very evil act, and my standards seem to fit the normal at least in this regard. I can provide a detailed explanation as to why my standards are what they are, but ultimately it comes down to this: I don’t wish to live in a world where genocide is considered acceptable. But even if the holocaust was a violation of some objective morality, what does that change? Either way, the holocaust still happened didn’t it? Whether it was a violation of god’s will or just a violation of my own moral position is somewhat irrelevant, as Nazi Germany happily committed several acts of genocide (a nation that was almost exclusively Christian (with a dwindling Jewish pop)). It seems that the origin of our morality is of considerably less importance than our agreed upon position regarding right and wrong and our willingness to enforce those standards.

If there is no Judge and morals “emerge from the community” – the community of Nazis wanted to kill the Jews, thus the Holocaust is justified on that basis.

Well apparently even if there is a “Judge” the Nazis were none-the-less still free to do as the pleased. Morality has less to do with what is right and wrong and more to do with what we are willing to tolerate and are capable of enforcing. For centuries atrocities committed against the Jews and Muslims and heretics and witches, etc. were justified for religious reasons, by people who thought they were carrying out god’s will(and frequently with the implicit and explicit approval of the church. Apparently the understanding of god’s will is not an exact science.

If morals emerge from the individual – then Hitler was justified.

Ultimately an irrelevant point; however I’m certain that from his perspective he was justified. His actions violated the international community’s understanding of right and wrong and that is the standard his collaborators were condemned on. Again, regardless as to whether there is a god or not, our morality is dependent upon our ability to come to a consensus about what is right and what is wrong and where the line should be drawn. God says the holocaust was wrong…great, fat lot of good that did the Jews. The Jews would have been better served by a community (both local and international) that wasn’t willing to tolerate Hitler’s evils.

That’s the first problem. If there is no God, then the law-giver and arbiter of the laws are human beings alone. In this case, might makes right and we see evidence of that. There is no higher law to appeal to.

Again, a completely irrelevant point, as apparently even with a god, might made right in this situation. It was ultimately the judgment of man that sentenced the responsible Nazis to death, and we were only able to do so after Germany’s military defeat. Clearly, god’s outrage regarding the situation wasn’t so great as to motivate him to step in and halt these atrocities prior to our doing so. So…what exactly are you suggesting to be the benefit of having a god based morality? Oh yeah, when we die god will dole out the appropriate eternal reward/punishment based upon our state of grace at the moment of our death (meaning that if Hitler were contrite at the moment of his death then he ended up going to heaven and that if Mother Teresa abandoned her faith moments before her death then she now burns in hell). Personally, I’ll stick with a secular based morality. Thanks anyway.

 

[Oreoracle]

But, then, how does one extrapolate that sentiment into the real world?

That pertains to politics, not ethics.

How would/could codified laws be constructed? Where are the “absolutes?” What are the “absolutes?”

Where? You really think values are objects? And there are no absolutes other than the greatest happiness principle. If there were, they would, at times, contradict the initial principle. Keep your eyes on the prize.

Who’s to say that the majority rules? If said, why?

Well, it’s part of the subjective consequentialist maxim that the greater good wins out. Why? Because I want happiness, and I induce that everyone wants it, so I work to produce as much as possible.

If “happiness is seen as inherently good” how on earth can we have happiness that is inherently bad?

I would say that pleasure is never bad, but various forms of pleasure-seeking can result in badness, as with your bully example.

 

[reggieM]

Sounds like a lovely emotional answer (the alternatives may be brutal, but not “false” as you say).

Why do you say that the alternatives are “brutal”?

I believe you wanted my answer? It’s quite simple. I understand that all conscious actions are motivated by the desire for happiness. Even your obedience to God is done for the sake of a sort of spiritual happiness. If an action fails to pleasure someone, they will discontinue the action, at least consciously. If suffering is the result of an action, one will attempt to avoid it. Given this, I support the greatest happiness principle of utilitarianism: what is best is what provides the greatest increase in the general happiness (sum of the happiness of sentient beings). Good enough for you?

It’s a good answer, but it’s got some significant gaps as I see it.