If morality were grounded, it would be static. However it changes over time. It was once moral to own slaves, treat women as inferior, kill thine enemy, and burn people at the stake as a way to save souls. None of those things are considered moral by (most) people today.
It once considered immoral to work on sunday, eat pork, defy kings and touch menstruating woman. Gods are symbols we create, within which we store our cultural views. These fluid views are what we choose to call, morality.
Grounding morality on God is as weak as grounding morality on evolutionary developed human nature. In both cases we merely have a description of what is the case. Theistic morality describes what God's nature IS like. Naturalistic morality describes humans nature.
Now you can say: "Some humans do not have feelings of empathy." but this argument is more of a problem for theistic morality than for evolutionary morality. Mental disorders make sense given naturalism but not given theism.
The next counter argument may be: "But if one's nature is different this morality is no longer binding". The same applys to theistic moraliy: If I don't care about God's nature and don't mind his punishment then theistic morality is not binding.
Finally one could argue that theistic morality is intrinsic because God is intrinsically good but what is his goodness grounded on ? Himself ? That's circular ? You may say that God is intrinsically good by definition but then you need to show that the belief in intrinsic morality is plausible before you can even consider God's existence.
I do not believe in morality in the intrinsic or normative sense. I believe things can only be right and wrong in a descriptive sense. That means rationally or emotionally right/wrong without a deeper underlying truth corresponding to that.
However, when making descriptive statements I tend to avoid the use of moral language to avoid confusing. Therefore moral nihilism is what I would classify my philosophy as.
That's good that your being consistent in your position. I'm pretty sure that you cant live nihilism out (nor can anyone else).
Still though I don't see how anything can be wrong in a descriptive sense- that commits the is-ought fallacy.
Anyway, do you honestly believe that there is no objective difference between killing a child for fun and helping a child on the street who has nothing ( yes im taking it to the extreme in a vivid way) ?
Not unless one claims that a descriptive "wrong" implys an ought - and I don't. I am not saying that if someone has a natural desire to rape and kill people he ought not do it. All I am saying is that I have negative feelings about it, that it is against my interests and natural preferences and my genetic disposition and that I therefore do not want others to do that. I did never say that this implys an ought or that it is a "wrong" in the normative sense. Thus no is/ought problem here.
The biggest difference I see in secular vs religious morals is that secular morals insist we are accountable to strangers we harm whereas religious morals insist this accountability is owed to a magic daddy. A good example is abortion, If I where to prevent a stranger from having one I would have to assume all responsibility for that unwanted child and provide the support it needs. For the Theist the prevention is the moral act because God is happy, no accountability to the child is needed.
Excellent post crossoldman. Yes, why does the christian religion specifically make christians responsible to a god and not each other? It's like saying, murder is wrong not because it is against the victim, but because it is against the police. This is not a useful perspective. You've hit the nail on the head.
Theist morality is not true morality since it is based on appeasing a supernatural being and not on benefiting humanity as a whole. Only the most blind and dishonest theist would claim the morality has not evolved since the OT. Lots of dribble here about atheists having to make personal judgments based on nothing but that is not reality. In reality we all know what is acceptable in our culture. Why would a Christian think that sex with children is wrong since it's never mentioned in the bible?
Atheistic morality is not true morality since it is based solely on the culture in which one lives or the tastes and desires of the individual and not on benefiting humanity as a whole.
OK,seriously, let me ask you some questions.
Why should we benefit humanity as a whole?
Also you say "in reality we all know what is acceptable in our culture".
Please clarify what your saying. I agree that some moral truths are self-evidence. But I disagree on who can ground these self-evident moral truths.
I would like to hear how the requirement to "ground" morality isn't begging the question. If you pre-determine that the only thing which could serve as the "ground" of morality is something godlike, then sure, atheism can't ground morality. But humans create moral oughts all the time (e.g. you ought not to refuse to shake hands with somebody---what grounds that moral ought?) so why would a godlike entity be needed to ground morality?
"I would like to hear how the requirement to "ground" morality isn't begging the question"
Unless you can ground morality in some transcendent being which gives us a moral law, it ultimately becomes a construct that is relative either to the individual or to the culture in which one lives.
"But humans create moral oughts all the time so why would a godlike entity be needed to ground morality"
OK, well say your in a situation. One person says "You ought to kill children for fun", and you say to the person "You ought not kill children for fun".
Both of these are moral oughts or laws. Yet one could ask, "Whats is the basis for these claims". If these two were atheists there basis for these judgments ultimately would be themselves and what they thought was right or wrong.
you make the statement "unless you can ground morality in some transcendent being....it ultimately becomes...relative either to the individual or to the culture" why?? How could you prove that statement?
Hi ncs901, lets see if I can answer your questions.....again, I think the issue of slavery can be used here....what objective standard do we derive these values from? I don't see why they couldn't have been derived the same way we derived that slavery was wrong. How is "getting together and figuring it out" done? Again, slavery provides an example: its a messy process of discussion, hard experience, war, etc. But eventually we figured out slavery was wrong.
Hello Randy. Sorry I didn't respond earlier. Anyway, let me press you with some comments and questions.
( capitalization is only for emphasis)
"eventually we figured out slavery was wrong. "
Well a key factor when it comes to objective morality, is this: To say a certain objective moral principle is wrong , is to say it is wrong INDEPENDENT of whether any one believes it or not.
What your suggesting seems to be saying the opposite, that morality is DEPENDANT on the people.
Hi ncs901, thanks, I always try to discuss things in goodwill. I also believe that whether, say, slavery, is good or not, is independent of whether everybody agrees with it or not. But that is still consistent with morality being invented by us. For example, I think that computers are objectively better than pencil and paper when it comes to adding up lots of numbers :-) I think that anybody who doesn't think so is wrong :-) But this doesn't mean that (cont)
(cont, to ncs901) we didn't invent computers. We don't need god to underwrite or ground the superiority of computers to pencil and paper. Computers just ARE better at adding up lot of numbers than pencil and paper are. Similarly, freedom just IS better than slavery. But a free society is something we invented. I believe we can--just like we invent things like computers--we can also invent better ways of being, we can invent new morals. (cont)
(cont, to ncs901) your question "What if there exists an ethical disagreement on an issue, whose side wins?" is a very good question. But I think that the question is much easier to answer from an atheist perspective than from a theistic perspective. There's no one way to decide who wins, it depends on the moral in question. Slavery was decided in one way, equal rights for women was decided in another, elimination of debtor's prisons was decided in another, etc (cont)
(cont, to ncs901) I think the question of "whose side wins" becomse so much HARDER when you try to ground morality in a theistic perspective. Most christians think its only moral to marry 1 wife, most muslims think its moral to marry up to 4. Both presumably think this morality is underwritten by their god, but how do you tell who is right? Even if you agreed on the Bible, for example, that doesn't help. The Bible doesn't prohibit polygamy, for example. Why did monogomy win? (cont)
(cont, to ncs901) Also, as Abraham lincoln famously said in is 2nd innagural, both sides prayed to the same god, both invoked the Bible to support there positions.....the bible just couldn't be used to adjudicate here. Remember, that was a much more religious time; almost everybody in the north and the south believed the bible was the rule of life. Anyways, i hope this answers your questions ok....
Hi ncs901, w.r.t. resolving whether it is good to kill children or not we resolve that the same way resolve anything else: by getting together and figuring it out. I don't see how a transcendent being would help us here: for example. during the civil war, as Abraham Lincoln said, both sides prayed to the same God, but one side said slavery is Ok (and had their bible texts to prove it) and one side said slavery is not OK. How does god help here?
"In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?".
"by getting together and figuring it out" = Pragmatism Cf. Richard Rorty.
1noen1 2 years ago
LOL islam ..........
slLLyhumans 2 years ago
If morality were grounded, it would be static. However it changes over time. It was once moral to own slaves, treat women as inferior, kill thine enemy, and burn people at the stake as a way to save souls. None of those things are considered moral by (most) people today.
It once considered immoral to work on sunday, eat pork, defy kings and touch menstruating woman. Gods are symbols we create, within which we store our cultural views. These fluid views are what we choose to call, morality.
cachize 2 years ago
Awesome job, Greg, as always!
okebaram 2 years ago
Part 1:
Grounding morality on God is as weak as grounding morality on evolutionary developed human nature. In both cases we merely have a description of what is the case. Theistic morality describes what God's nature IS like. Naturalistic morality describes humans nature.
Now you can say: "Some humans do not have feelings of empathy." but this argument is more of a problem for theistic morality than for evolutionary morality. Mental disorders make sense given naturalism but not given theism.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
Part 2:
The next counter argument may be: "But if one's nature is different this morality is no longer binding". The same applys to theistic moraliy: If I don't care about God's nature and don't mind his punishment then theistic morality is not binding.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
Part 3:
Finally one could argue that theistic morality is intrinsic because God is intrinsically good but what is his goodness grounded on ? Himself ? That's circular ? You may say that God is intrinsically good by definition but then you need to show that the belief in intrinsic morality is plausible before you can even consider God's existence.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
What ethical view do you subscribe to?
ncs901 2 years ago
I do not believe in morality in the intrinsic or normative sense. I believe things can only be right and wrong in a descriptive sense. That means rationally or emotionally right/wrong without a deeper underlying truth corresponding to that.
However, when making descriptive statements I tend to avoid the use of moral language to avoid confusing. Therefore moral nihilism is what I would classify my philosophy as.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
That's good that your being consistent in your position. I'm pretty sure that you cant live nihilism out (nor can anyone else).
Still though I don't see how anything can be wrong in a descriptive sense- that commits the is-ought fallacy.
Anyway, do you honestly believe that there is no objective difference between killing a child for fun and helping a child on the street who has nothing ( yes im taking it to the extreme in a vivid way) ?
ncs901 2 years ago
My fault i misrepresented your comment. I didnt see this part:
"That means rationally or emotionally right/wrong without a deeper underlying truth corresponding to that."
So disregard when I said "Still though I don't see how anything can be wrong in a descriptive sense- that commits the is-ought fallacy. "
ncs901 2 years ago
Not unless one claims that a descriptive "wrong" implys an ought - and I don't. I am not saying that if someone has a natural desire to rape and kill people he ought not do it. All I am saying is that I have negative feelings about it, that it is against my interests and natural preferences and my genetic disposition and that I therefore do not want others to do that. I did never say that this implys an ought or that it is a "wrong" in the normative sense. Thus no is/ought problem here.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
Yeah. If you look down in the comments I said to disregard what I said.
ncs901 2 years ago
The biggest difference I see in secular vs religious morals is that secular morals insist we are accountable to strangers we harm whereas religious morals insist this accountability is owed to a magic daddy. A good example is abortion, If I where to prevent a stranger from having one I would have to assume all responsibility for that unwanted child and provide the support it needs. For the Theist the prevention is the moral act because God is happy, no accountability to the child is needed.
crossoldman 2 years ago
Excellent post crossoldman. Yes, why does the christian religion specifically make christians responsible to a god and not each other? It's like saying, murder is wrong not because it is against the victim, but because it is against the police. This is not a useful perspective. You've hit the nail on the head.
cachize 2 years ago
Theist morality is not true morality since it is based on appeasing a supernatural being and not on benefiting humanity as a whole. Only the most blind and dishonest theist would claim the morality has not evolved since the OT. Lots of dribble here about atheists having to make personal judgments based on nothing but that is not reality. In reality we all know what is acceptable in our culture. Why would a Christian think that sex with children is wrong since it's never mentioned in the bible?
crossoldman 2 years ago
Atheistic morality is not true morality since it is based solely on the culture in which one lives or the tastes and desires of the individual and not on benefiting humanity as a whole.
OK,seriously, let me ask you some questions.
Why should we benefit humanity as a whole?
Also you say "in reality we all know what is acceptable in our culture".
Please clarify what your saying. I agree that some moral truths are self-evidence. But I disagree on who can ground these self-evident moral truths.
ncs901 2 years ago
*self-evident*
ncs901 2 years ago
Thanks Greg! I'm gonna buy your book on relativism. I think you explained the subject most clearly! God Bless man!
Armando7654 2 years ago
I would like to hear how the requirement to "ground" morality isn't begging the question. If you pre-determine that the only thing which could serve as the "ground" of morality is something godlike, then sure, atheism can't ground morality. But humans create moral oughts all the time (e.g. you ought not to refuse to shake hands with somebody---what grounds that moral ought?) so why would a godlike entity be needed to ground morality?
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
"I would like to hear how the requirement to "ground" morality isn't begging the question"
Unless you can ground morality in some transcendent being which gives us a moral law, it ultimately becomes a construct that is relative either to the individual or to the culture in which one lives.
ncs901 2 years ago
Cont
"But humans create moral oughts all the time so why would a godlike entity be needed to ground morality"
OK, well say your in a situation. One person says "You ought to kill children for fun", and you say to the person "You ought not kill children for fun".
Both of these are moral oughts or laws. Yet one could ask, "Whats is the basis for these claims". If these two were atheists there basis for these judgments ultimately would be themselves and what they thought was right or wrong.
ncs901 2 years ago
you make the statement "unless you can ground morality in some transcendent being....it ultimately becomes...relative either to the individual or to the culture" why?? How could you prove that statement?
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
OK..Let me try to clarify what I'm saying. By asking another question.
What is the objective standard which we derive these particular moral values from?
ncs901 2 years ago
Hi ncs901, lets see if I can answer your questions.....again, I think the issue of slavery can be used here....what objective standard do we derive these values from? I don't see why they couldn't have been derived the same way we derived that slavery was wrong. How is "getting together and figuring it out" done? Again, slavery provides an example: its a messy process of discussion, hard experience, war, etc. But eventually we figured out slavery was wrong.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Hello Randy. Sorry I didn't respond earlier. Anyway, let me press you with some comments and questions.
( capitalization is only for emphasis)
"eventually we figured out slavery was wrong. "
Well a key factor when it comes to objective morality, is this: To say a certain objective moral principle is wrong , is to say it is wrong INDEPENDENT of whether any one believes it or not.
What your suggesting seems to be saying the opposite, that morality is DEPENDANT on the people.
ncs901 2 years ago
Which seems like a sort of normative relativism-we "ought" to do what people decide on what we should do.
So let me also ask you this:
What if there exists an ethical disagreement on an issue, whose side wins
Also when does a certain moral principle become objective?
Thanks again. I'm mainly here for experience..You seem like a smart guy whose interested in truth.
ncs901 2 years ago
Hi ncs901, thanks, I always try to discuss things in goodwill. I also believe that whether, say, slavery, is good or not, is independent of whether everybody agrees with it or not. But that is still consistent with morality being invented by us. For example, I think that computers are objectively better than pencil and paper when it comes to adding up lots of numbers :-) I think that anybody who doesn't think so is wrong :-) But this doesn't mean that (cont)
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
(cont, to ncs901) we didn't invent computers. We don't need god to underwrite or ground the superiority of computers to pencil and paper. Computers just ARE better at adding up lot of numbers than pencil and paper are. Similarly, freedom just IS better than slavery. But a free society is something we invented. I believe we can--just like we invent things like computers--we can also invent better ways of being, we can invent new morals. (cont)
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
(cont, to ncs901) your question "What if there exists an ethical disagreement on an issue, whose side wins?" is a very good question. But I think that the question is much easier to answer from an atheist perspective than from a theistic perspective. There's no one way to decide who wins, it depends on the moral in question. Slavery was decided in one way, equal rights for women was decided in another, elimination of debtor's prisons was decided in another, etc (cont)
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
(cont, to ncs901) I think the question of "whose side wins" becomse so much HARDER when you try to ground morality in a theistic perspective. Most christians think its only moral to marry 1 wife, most muslims think its moral to marry up to 4. Both presumably think this morality is underwritten by their god, but how do you tell who is right? Even if you agreed on the Bible, for example, that doesn't help. The Bible doesn't prohibit polygamy, for example. Why did monogomy win? (cont)
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
(cont, to ncs901) Also, as Abraham lincoln famously said in is 2nd innagural, both sides prayed to the same god, both invoked the Bible to support there positions.....the bible just couldn't be used to adjudicate here. Remember, that was a much more religious time; almost everybody in the north and the south believed the bible was the rule of life. Anyways, i hope this answers your questions ok....
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Yeah good answers lol..I'm going to have to think about you response more, and also some more questions if that's OK.
Im going to start videos as well, so perhaps you might see a video from me.
This also shows me I really have to study these certain ethical issues more in depth ( e,g,, biblical slavery and polygamy.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion and look forward to a response.
ncs901 2 years ago
lol thanks ncs901, I do hope you make videos, I would look forward to seeing them.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Hi ncs901, w.r.t. resolving whether it is good to kill children or not we resolve that the same way resolve anything else: by getting together and figuring it out. I don't see how a transcendent being would help us here: for example. during the civil war, as Abraham Lincoln said, both sides prayed to the same God, but one side said slavery is Ok (and had their bible texts to prove it) and one side said slavery is not OK. How does god help here?
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
OK...I'll answer your questions. But perhaps let me ask you a couple questions and state a couple comments before. If that's cool?
"by getting together and figuring it out"
How would this be done? It would be nice if you would elaborate on it.
ncs901 2 years ago
(Cont 2)
Also regarding biblical slavery I cant really help you out there, simply because I'm not too well versed on this issue.
Nonetheless, this is getting into a total different set of issues.
For example: Has this God tried to reveal Himself in some kind of special revelation (like the bible or torah--something of that nature.)
Or does the particular God condone of such acts or not?
ncs901 2 years ago
Cont 2
This reminds me of a quote:
"In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?".
ncs901 2 years ago