Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So at work today, I was on my break sitting there pondering a recent event in my life between myself and another party, that clearly showed a lack of morality on their part........and then it hit me like a freight train......it had never been so clear to me that "morality" is not and can not be used as an argument for a God. It was truly a Eureka moment for me.
The morality arguemnt fails on one simplistic point....... not everyone has morals. If morals were proof of God, wouldn't it stand to reason that everyone would be born with them? Even watching your late local news should be clear proof that not everyone has morals.
Morality Agrument.....
Fail.
Thoughts?
I think your entire premise is flawed. Everyone has morals. Some are better than other, but everybody has some. However, the flaw doesn't stop there. Next you said "if morals were proof of God," but, since morals really have nothing to do with God, that premise is also flawed. Some people have very low moral standards, but they still have morals of some sort. This applies to everybody, even those who have ever heard of any gods or religions, so religion is irrelevant to morals.
Some could also say that what is head is 'not very nice' but sadly it is hard to say if he is spewing his hate (a common occurrence) or his ignorance.
And I know that you and he are absolutely wrong!
You have been sold a bill of goods my friend from the snake oil salesmen of ancient superstitions.
You don't "know" anything, first of all. Second, I think you misunderstand my stance. Third, there is never a call for your style of slash and burn arrogance in any sort of discussion.
Didn't I read lately about the "hit and run" Christians on the AA forum? I find you to be every bit as unbending and fundemental as the best of them.
You know, there is another atheistic option for morality besides subjectivity: objective morality is a fundamental truth that exists independent of any human opinion or conscious being (such as a god), and because it is utterly fundamental, it requires absolutely no explanation or basis. It is simply, as philosophers say, a "brute fact," and we as people know it in the same way that we know of our own existence -- it is "properly basic" for us.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this view, but it is a reasonable non-theistic option for objective morality.
Belief in any sort of intangible "brute fact" in the universe is akin to belief in a supreme being, with the possible exception of gravity. Not sure if objective morality is testable and repeatable. But the difference between gravity and morality is that morality requires a nature, or personality to distinguish it's traits. Gravity does not, and may just exist, with a god or without.
Naturalistic moralism begs subjectivity due to the nature of belief structures evolving with the species, being unguided or directed by a higher power.
It just doesn't make any sense to believe in universal moral absolutes without the belief in a transcendent power. That is, without contradiction.
I guess I've never even heard that being used as an argument as proof of God.
If I had heard it, I probably would agree with you that it isn't a good or valid argument.
Some who don't believe in God probably do show better morals than some who claim to believe in God.
I know that from many people who I've obsrved of many people in my own life.
You aren't trying to say that the fact that this argument does not prove that here is a God, proves that there isn't a God, are you?
Not nonsense. Common sense. Without a force of either good or evil in the universe, it would be impossible to tell one from the other in any objective way, and human morality could only be based upon what the majority believes to be right or wrong at the time.
Thats right. There are no good or evil forces, and what you may percieve as evil, someone else may not think is. What you percieve as good, someone else may percieve as bad.
Quote:
It would be constantly changing as the human condition changed, and no action could be determined universally right or wrong.
Well take a look through history, thats pretty much how it's happened.
To the OP:
Quote:
The fact that free-will has allowed some people to reject a moral code does not mean that there is not one. Furthermore, if there is no objective morality, then you have no footing on which to call your arch-enemy's actions wrong at all.
Wrong. Subjective morality permits me to do so. What thisperson did, I found to be very wrong of them. But apparently, they didn't think it wrong enough not to do it. That, in and of it's self, proves subjective morality.
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
Not at all. Do you believe witch trials were wrong when they were done?
Living in the here and now? Yes, I believe they were quite wrong. Had I been living in the time of question, who knows. There were apparently many who supported them. More proof of a subjective morality without an objective morality. If there were an objective morality, the people of that time would have thought them to be just as wrong as we do today.
Quote:
Or is it always subjective to the times?
Yes.
Quote:
. However, if morality is subjective, then there may come a time when witch hunts are again acceptable within society, and therefore by your argument, right.
That time may well come. Who or what is to say that it never will? On what criteria is that assumption formed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
"morality" is just a subjective opinion on how best to act in order to maximize a list of benefits in a society of individuals living together. Not having an objective basis for it does not mean it does not exist any more than not having an objective basis for what should taste good or bad means that therefore human taste does not exist.
.
I don't know that I have ever heard it stated so accurately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
I really don't think this is valid.
Theists of all types agree on the existence of one or a variety of gods, but they disagree on morality.
Even theists who agree on a morality that they imagine is prescribed by their god would admit that they sometimes fail to meet the standards that this morality prescribes.
Why would morality be different from any other value or body of knowledge? We are not born with the knowledge of mathematics, yet it would be foolhardy to claim that mathematics does not exist.
Even the question of whether morality "exists" doesn't really make much sense. Most people have some sense of moral values, so in that sense it exists.
On the other hand, those moral values are neither universal nor unquestionable. Morality is an idea that describes principles people use to govern their behavior. It exists in the same sense that music exists, or economics, or humor.
You know what? You are right. I thought about it more after I signed off last night, and realised that my argument could be countered simply by stating that morality could just be ignored and that no one ever said that God implants morality in our brains at birth. I was so sure I had something with this when I started the thread, and therein is the problem with "thought without evaluation". You can be so sure of yourself, until you stop and think it over deeper. Started a half decent discussion on morality though....so at least theres that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCGranny
If you want to discuss the objective status of morality, you need only look at the animal kingdom. They have no gods, but they raise their own children (for the most part) and do not abandon them, they work together in many situations for the good of their community, they do not kill others wholesale and mindlessly... everything animals do is for their own survival and the survival of their species. "Instinctual", ingrained behavior, or learned behavior, they have their own morality that is not subject to a belief in a god.
.
I suggest you turn on Animal Planet
Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4answers12
You aren't trying to say that the fact that this argument does not prove that here is a God, proves that there isn't a God, are you?
No. If there is a God, I truly believe it has no morals based on what it allows to go on in this world then, now, and surely to come.
You seem to have the morality/God relationship back-to-front, Whipper. It is an existential issue. IF God does NOT exist . . . neither does morality. If morality exists . . . then so does God. Morality is the gauge against which our actions are measured for their impact on the purpose of OUR existence. If there is no God then there is no purpose for the existence of humanity . . . and there is no morality. IF God exists then there IS a purpose for the existence of humanity . . . and there is morality. Cosmic accidents have no purpose for existing . . . hence no morality. All talk of human-derived purposes are specious and arbitrary . . . as would be any morality based on them.
There is no "purpose" to our existence. And morality is subjective.
Thats right. There are no good or evil forces, and what you may percieve as evil, someone else may not think is. What you percieve as good, someone else may percieve as bad.
Well take a look through history, thats pretty much how it's happened.
To the OP:
Wrong. Subjective morality permits me to do so. What thisperson did, I found to be very wrong of them. But apparently, they didn't think it wrong enough not to do it. That, in and of it's self, proves subjective morality.
Quote:
Living in the here and now? Yes, I believe they were quite wrong. Had I been living in the time of question, who knows. There were apparently many who supported them. More proof of a subjective morality without an objective morality. If there were an objective morality, the people of that time would have thought them to be just as wrong as we do today.
Yes.
That time may well come. Who or what is to say that it never will? On what criteria is that assumption formed?
I don't know that I have ever heard it stated so accurately.
You know what? You are right. I thought about it more after I signed off last night, and realised that my argument could be countered simply by stating that morality could just be ignored and that no one ever said that God implants morality in our brains at birth. I was so sure I had something with this when I started the thread, and therein is the problem with "thought without evaluation". You can be so sure of yourself, until you stop and think it over deeper. Started a half decent discussion on morality though....so at least theres that.
I suggest you turn on Animal Planet
No. If there is a God, I truly believe it has no morals based on what it allows to go on in this world then, now, and surely to come.
1) Without an objective good and bad, then niether are right, and the opinions of either equal "blah, blah, blah".
2) I agree that we have abandoned bad moral ideas throughout history. That does not mean that there never was a wrong being done at the time, or that there never was an objective morality.
3) Don't know what that person did, but their disagreement of the morality of the issue means nothing, whether there is object morality or not. How does non conformity to an absolute morality in a universe with free-will equal a confirmation of subjective morality? The point is, is that if there is not objective morality, then your objection to their behavior equals "blah, blah, blah."
4) As far as witch hunts and slavery go, I believe them to be moral wrongs whether they existed 150 years ago, or will exist 150 years in the future.
Absolute morality does not mean that it is always black and white. I could come up with a host of scenarios in which neither option is a good one, and a choice must be made as to which is the best. What it comes down to to me, is that there is an ultimate force of good in the universe, and we should do our best to subscribe to it even though the way is not clear, due to the existence of our free will.
Thats right. There are no good or evil forces, and what you may percieve as evil, someone else may not think is. What you percieve as good, someone else may percieve as bad.
Well take a look through history, thats pretty much how it's happened.
To the OP:
Wrong. Subjective morality permits me to do so. What thisperson did, I found to be very wrong of them. But apparently, they didn't think it wrong enough not to do it. That, in and of it's self, proves subjective morality.
1) Without an objective good and bad, then niether are right, and the opinions of either equal "blah, blah, blah".
2) I agree that we have abandoned bad moral ideas throughout history. That does not mean that there never was a wrong being done at the time, or that there never was an objective morality.
3) Don't know what that person did, but their disagreement of the morality of the issue means nothing, whether there is object morality or not. How does non conformity to an absolute morality in a universe with free-will equal a confirmation of subjective morality? The point is, is that if there is not objective morality, then your objection to their behavior equals "blah, blah, blah."
4) As far as witch hunts and slavery go, I believe them to be moral wrongs whether they existed 150 years ago, or will exist 150 years in the future.
Absolute morality does not mean that it is always black and white. I could come up with a host of scenarios in which neither option is a good one, and a choice must be made as to which is the best. What it comes down to to me, is that there is an ultimate force of good in the universe, and we should do our best to subscribe to it even though the way is not clear, due to the existence of our free will.
To spite my urge to pick this entire thing apart and respond, you know what? We will all be dead in 100 years anyway so the hell with it.
Have a nice evening.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
