Morality Without God?

[Beanybag]

OM can exist sans God.

I found this interesting because, as I had said much earlier, morality CAN exist apart from God ( even the bible states this to a certain extent), BUT the notion of an Objective morality?
Hmmm...I would think that, apart from a source totally removed from all involved, morality will ALWAYS be subjective to whoever his/shares morals.
I am curious as to how you think objective and/or absolute morals can exist apart from those deciding what is moral?

You can argue, as Spock is somewhat arguing, that there is a natural moral law without a moral law giver. However, I am not sure how the existence of the moral laws is justified. Perhaps there is an ontological argument that all sets of morality will exist across all sets of world, however, this will make morality seem arbitrary, which contradicts evidence and intuition. I'm not sure if I can come up with the justification.

[PaulSacramento]

OM can exist sans God.

I found this interesting because, as I had said much earlier, morality CAN exist apart from God ( even the bible states this to a certain extent), BUT the notion of an Objective morality?
Hmmm...I would think that, apart from a source totally removed from all involved, morality will ALWAYS be subjective to whoever his/shares morals.
I am curious as to how you think objective and/or absolute morals can exist apart from those deciding what is moral?

You can argue, as Spock is somewhat arguing, that there is a natural moral law without a moral law giver. However, I am not sure how the existence of the moral laws is justified. Perhaps there is an ontological argument that all sets of morality will exist across all sets of world, however, this will make morality seem arbitrary, which contradicts evidence and intuition. I'm not sure if I can come up with the justification.

I can understand that from a subjective moral POV, but objective?
The GR is (typically) subjective because it is based on coming from the notion of "benefit" or "consequence" of a certain action.
DO unto others as you would have them do to you, or don't do anything to anyone you wouldn't want done to you.
Morals based on consequences, the desire to NOT have something done or the desire to have something done.
Basically it is morals with ulterior motives, hardly objective and more certainly not absolute.

[jlay]

Actually, I think Beany nailed it. It seems arbitrary. Of course I could be wrong.

The GR is (typically) subjective because it is based on coming from the notion of "benefit" or "consequence" of a certain action.

Does seem kind of like a form of consequentialism, and ultimately question begging.
I think the issue here is that the GR in and of itself is epistemologicaly objective. And if one dismisses the distinctions regarding ontology, then bingo.

[PaulSacramento]

Actually, I think Beany nailed it. It seems arbitrary. Of course I could be wrong.

The GR is (typically) subjective because it is based on coming from the notion of "benefit" or "consequence" of a certain action.

Does seem kind of like a form of consequentialism, and ultimately question begging.
I think the issue here is that the GR in and of itself is epistemologicaly objective. And if one dismisses the distinctions regarding ontology, then bingo.

So, it seems that it is as objective as it logically can be to the limited extent that it is.
IT is still subjective of course, just the most objective that a subjective morality can be? something like that?
So, the GR is as objective a moral "law" can be, without a "divine being" to fall back on, yes?

[PaulSacramento]

One thing we need to remember though, the GR is NOT the basis for Christian morality, it is at best a subset" of it or a starting point.
A way to apply morality, not morality in of itself.

[PaulSacramento]

I think you have misunderstood the Golden Rule by the example you gave. You said the Vikings had issues with their own women being raped but had no problem raping other women; the Golden Rule has to do with treating others as you wish to be treated. An appropriate question to ask the Vikings who were raping other women, is if they themselves would want to be raped? The answer is most certainly NO. The Golden Rule must be applied to ones self and how you treat others.

Self awareness is a fact that leads to morality and is always consistent, because the mere fact of being aware of ones own feelings and knowing other humans have those same feelings, invariably leads to the idea of treating others as you wish to be treated. It's a very simple idea and it applies universally, that is why so many great teachers like Confucius and Jesus taught it as the commandment that trumps all others.

I wanted to bring this back because I think that it is the root of the difference:
First off, Jesus taught the golden rule as a starting point and NOT as a commandment that trumps all others, He actually went BEYOND it ( and his commandment to love each other as He loved us would, arguably, be THE commandment to "trump all others") but the main issue is this I think:
the Golden Rule has to do with treating others as you wish to be treated

So, if I wish that Adrian Lima would tie me up an do all sorts of naughty things to me with her mouth, I am justified in doing so to her ?
Doing such, doing to Adriana what I would want her to do to me, treating her as I would like her to treat me, is following the GR, yes?

I think there is a problem there...

[RickD]

So, if I wish that Adrian Lima would tie me up an do all sorts of naughty things to me with her mouth, I am justified in doing so to her ?
Doing such, doing to Adriana what I would want her to do to me, treating her as I would like her to treat me, is following the GR, yes?

That's taking "love thy neighbor" to a whole new level!

[B. W.]

Butterfly, you have made attacks by claiming ten Christian men were attacking you when none were. Then as well in other cases too. There are a wide array of readers to this forum and when a person, no matter what their gender, writes things that can be taken as Anti-Semitic or even suggest that, direct action must be taken. Please learn to choose you words more carefully. The way you pose your statements about Hebrews can be taken wrongly by those reading. It is incredible that you and Spock cannot understand that with the intelligence you two have.

But again, in the world of subjective morality that people embrace, selfishness is the ultimate determinant of what makes right - right. With subjective moralist, they play the victim card well and never see how they could ever possibly offend anyone and get furious when one points out that they have offended or could offend others reading what they wrote on this forum. I tested your GR and discovered a lack of forgiveness, but rather a will to be right at all cost. That is a bad trait and just may hamper your marriage in a negative way.

However, back on topic, since this is an exercise in the GR, you cannot see that according to your Point of View nothing was done wrong other than point out the need to watch your words and the way you write to avoid coming across as attacking Hebrews and men. You made a false assertion that ten Christian men were attacking you - that was a false assertion nevertheless. According to the GR - forgiveness is a key. You sought for none and asked for none.
-
-
-

[Danieltwotwenty]

Just to add to what B.W. wrote, everyone always holds Christians to a higher standard, as some have alluded too many times.
Unfortunately Christians are no better than any other person, we are all sinners in need of a saviour, we are just as susceptable to our emotions as any regular person and can ( shock, Horror) make mistakes.


Dan

[Butterfly]

I think you have misunderstood the Golden Rule by the example you gave. You said the Vikings had issues with their own women being raped but had no problem raping other women; the Golden Rule has to do with treating others as you wish to be treated. An appropriate question to ask the Vikings who were raping other women, is if they themselves would want to be raped? The answer is most certainly NO. The Golden Rule must be applied to ones self and how you treat others.

Self awareness is a fact that leads to morality and is always consistent, because the mere fact of being aware of ones own feelings and knowing other humans have those same feelings, invariably leads to the idea of treating others as you wish to be treated. It's a very simple idea and it applies universally, that is why so many great teachers like Confucius and Jesus taught it as the commandment that trumps all others.

I wanted to bring this back because I think that it is the root of the difference:
First off, Jesus taught the golden rule as a starting point and NOT as a commandment that trumps all others, He actually went BEYOND it ( and his commandment to love each other as He loved us would, arguably, be THE commandment to "trump all others") but the main issue is this I think:
the Golden Rule has to do with treating others as you wish to be treated

So, if I wish that Adrian Lima would tie me up an do all sorts of naughty things to me with her mouth, I am justified in doing so to her ?
Doing such, doing to Adriana what I would want her to do to me, treating her as I would like her to treat me, is following the GR, yes?

I think there is a problem there...

I'm probably making a big mistake taking on your "slightly off-color" example, but here goes.

In this case I would propose to you the inverse version of the GR taught by Confucius: Don't do unto others what you don't want done to yourself. If Adrian Lima did not want your "naughty" things done to herself, then she would not do them to you. You would not want something forced upon you that you didn't like, which means you don't force something upon others that they don't like.

That my friend, is the perfect symmetry of the GR...
-

[The Protector]

I think you have misunderstood the Golden Rule by the example you gave. You said the Vikings had issues with their own women being raped but had no problem raping other women; the Golden Rule has to do with treating others as you wish to be treated. An appropriate question to ask the Vikings who were raping other women, is if they themselves would want to be raped? The answer is most certainly NO. The Golden Rule must be applied to ones self and how you treat others.

Self awareness is a fact that leads to morality and is always consistent, because the mere fact of being aware of ones own feelings and knowing other humans have those same feelings, invariably leads to the idea of treating others as you wish to be treated. It's a very simple idea and it applies universally, that is why so many great teachers like Confucius and Jesus taught it as the commandment that trumps all others.

I wanted to bring this back because I think that it is the root of the difference:
First off, Jesus taught the golden rule as a starting point and NOT as a commandment that trumps all others, He actually went BEYOND it ( and his commandment to love each other as He loved us would, arguably, be THE commandment to "trump all others") but the main issue is this I think:
the Golden Rule has to do with treating others as you wish to be treated

So, if I wish that Adrian Lima would tie me up an do all sorts of naughty things to me with her mouth, I am justified in doing so to her ?
Doing such, doing to Adriana what I would want her to do to me, treating her as I would like her to treat me, is following the GR, yes?

I think there is a problem there...

I'm probably making a big mistake taking on your "slightly off-color" example, but here goes.

In this case I would propose to you the inverse version of the GR taught by Confucius: Don't do unto others what you don't want done to yourself. If Adrian Lima did not want your "naughty" things done to herself, then she would not do them to you. You would not want something forced upon you that you didn't like, which means you don't force something upon others that they don't like.

That my friend, is the perfect symmetry of the GR...
-

Here's what I don't understand: what makes symmetry (or reciprocity) a moral good?

And if the GR is objectively good because of its "symmetry," then why not "do unto others what they do unto you?" Something akin to eye for an eye? Call it the "Kharmic Code" if you like. Wouldn't that be just as symmetrical as the golden rule?

[Butterfly]

I think you have misunderstood the Golden Rule by the example you gave. You said the Vikings had issues with their own women being raped but had no problem raping other women; the Golden Rule has to do with treating others as you wish to be treated. An appropriate question to ask the Vikings who were raping other women, is if they themselves would want to be raped? The answer is most certainly NO. The Golden Rule must be applied to ones self and how you treat others.

Self awareness is a fact that leads to morality and is always consistent, because the mere fact of being aware of ones own feelings and knowing other humans have those same feelings, invariably leads to the idea of treating others as you wish to be treated. It's a very simple idea and it applies universally, that is why so many great teachers like Confucius and Jesus taught it as the commandment that trumps all others.

I wanted to bring this back because I think that it is the root of the difference:
First off, Jesus taught the golden rule as a starting point and NOT as a commandment that trumps all others, He actually went BEYOND it ( and his commandment to love each other as He loved us would, arguably, be THE commandment to "trump all others") but the main issue is this I think:
the Golden Rule has to do with treating others as you wish to be treated

So, if I wish that Adrian Lima would tie me up an do all sorts of naughty things to me with her mouth, I am justified in doing so to her ?
Doing such, doing to Adriana what I would want her to do to me, treating her as I would like her to treat me, is following the GR, yes?

I think there is a problem there...

I'm probably making a big mistake taking on your "slightly off-color" example, but here goes.

In this case I would propose to you the inverse version of the GR taught by Confucius: Don't do unto others what you don't want done to yourself. If Adrian Lima did not want your "naughty" things done to herself, then she would not do them to you. You would not want something forced upon you that you didn't like, which means you don't force something upon others that they don't like.

That my friend, is the perfect symmetry of the GR...
-

Here's what I don't understand: what makes symmetry (or reciprocity) a moral good?

And if the GR is objectively good because of its "symmetry," then why not "do unto others what they do unto you?" Something akin to eye for an eye? Call it the "Kharmic Code" if you like. Wouldn't that be just as symmetrical as the golden rule?

First off, the "symmetry" of the GR is not in and of itself a moral good, nor is the GR objectively good because of symmetry. Symmetry is a quality of the GR.

Secondly, applying the symmetric quality of the GR to your proposition of "doing unto others what they do unto you" does not quite work, because of the potential of imbalance. Take for instance you accidentally knocked my tooth out, so then I purposely knock your tooth out. The symmetry is lost, because accidentally and purposely are not symmetric.

Hope that helps,

[B. W.]

+
This comment is for the record as it pertains to the post below this one it due to Forum glitch when using multiple quotes:

Why are you afraid to answer the question Spock? I don't see anywhere so far where you answered this:

Greetings Spock question - Do you love your wife?

Yes. Do you agree with Craig's Moral Argument for God?

So if you entered your home with appropriate weapon, saw three men justifying their morality brutally assaulting your wife and child, what would you do:

1-Say, sorry guys, don't let me interrupt

2-Say, Here I am - attack me too while I dial 911

3-Or Kill the three men to save your wife and child?

I did not find your post worthy to be answered for a number of reasons.

1) I answered your question, but you ignored mine. Indeed, you deleted it from your response above (see the red text that I added back in).

2) You offered a set of emotionally laden and grossly irrational "options" for me to choose from. It is below my dignity to respond to such absurdities.

3) Any man who would suggest that I am "afraid" to answer his silly manipulative word games is not worthy of any further response. That simply is not how mature folks interested in rational discourse talk to others.

I would be delighted if you would like to participate in a rational discourse. If not, you can just continue talking to yourself and other like-minded game players.

[B. W.]

Regarding above post due to use of multiple quotes:

Actually Spock the point of the questions is laden with WLC, since you are unable to figure that out. For example WLC stated:

Finally, take the problem of moral accountability. Here we find a powerful practical argument for believing in God. According to William James, practical arguments can only be used when theoretical arguments are insufficient to decide a question of urgent and pragmatic importance. But it seems obvious that a practical argument could also be used to back up or motivate acceptance of the conclusion of a sound theoretical argument…

William Lane Craig Article quoted by Spock

So I used one to test you.

This question poses a set of variables to test your theory that actually comes from WLC and therefore I did answer you but you could not figure that out. I thought you'd be more intelligent and see the WLC in it. Guess that went over your head. However you did answer nevertheless.

Let’s look at WLC a bit more…

But wait. It would, indeed, be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God. But that was not the question. The question was: can we be good without God? When we ask that question, we are posing in a provocative way the meta-ethical question of the objectivity of moral values.

Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Or are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions?

William Lane Craig Article quoted by Spock

The point is this: If two people can't agree then there is no test to see which morals are superior when all morality is derived by human beings alone... That is the camp you fall under and anyone's premise about morals being based on solely human import and design alone falls to the ground as there is no way to determine right or wrong. Just as WLC pointed out…

Consider, then, the hypothesis that God exists. First, if God exists, objective moral values exist. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.

William Lane Craig Article quoted by Spock

So there was a reason for pointing out Butterfly’s poor choice of words regarding the use of the word Hebrew in her post as well as her inability to apologize – correct? As well as your answer to me regarding the question posed – correct. No way you can justify calling me names or I you – correct?

But if moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then such a gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines the objectivity of that realm. The fact is that we do apprehend objective values, and we all know it. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior--they are moral abominations. As Ruse himself states, "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5."13 By the same token, love, generosity, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good. People who fail to see this are just morally handicapped, and there is no reason to allow their impaired vision to call into question what we see clearly. Thus, the existence of objective moral values serves to demonstrate the existence of God.

It follows that moral obligations and right and wrong necessitate God's existence. And certainly we do have such obligations. Speaking recently on a Canadian University campus, I noticed a poster put up by the Sexual Assault & Information Center. It read: "Sexual Assault: No One Has the Right to Abuse a Child, Woman, or Man." Most of us recognize that that statement is evidently true. But the atheist can make no sense of a person's right not to be sexually abused by another. The best answer to the question as to the source of moral obligation is that moral rightness or wrongness consists in agreement or disagreement with the will or commands of a holy, loving God.

William Lane Craig Article quoted by Spock

This leads into these points:

-If there are no objective standards to measure right and wrong action then there are no answers and all anyone writes about Morality without God is pointless.

-If the Gold Rule is derived solely upon human subjectivity alone per person then nothing was done silly or absurd to you in posing these three provocative questions to you.

You have no bases for calling names if there is no way to determine right and wrong. That was one point of the exercise. It was not the answer to the question but how you answer that uncovers something about yourself, Spock.

In summary, theological meta-ethical foundations do seem to be necessary for morality. If God does not exist, then it is plausible to think that there are no objective moral values, that we have no moral duties, and that there is no moral accountability for how we live and act. The horror of such a morally neutral world is obvious. If, on the other hand, we hold, as it seems rational to do, that objective moral values and duties do exist, then we have good grounds for believing in the existence of God. In addition, we have powerful practical reasons for embracing theism in view of the morally bracing effects which belief in moral accountability produces. We cannot, then, truly be good without God; but if we can in some measure be good, then it follows that God exists.

William Lane Craig Article quoted by Spock

My apologies that this simple exercise went way over your head... but you still answered the question...

Not all rational discourses are on your terms, are they, so then why is that wrong?
-
-
-

[jlay]

Here's what I don't understand: what makes symmetry (or reciprocity) a moral good?

And if the GR is objectively good because of its "symmetry," then why not "do unto others what they do unto you?" Something akin to eye for an eye? Call it the "Kharmic Code" if you like. Wouldn't that be just as symmetrical as the golden rule?

Good question. I'm sure that is a question that Spock will address when he returns as it is directly related to his argument.

That my friend, is the perfect symmetry of the GR...

There are many dilemas we can examine. The same issue came up when we were discussing consequentialism. As I mentioned before. The GR rule can help us measure right and wrong, just as a ruler can help us measure the lenght of an object.
I would contend there are times where discarding the GR is the right thing to do. What pops right in my mind is if someone is attempting to harm my family. In this case there is another ruler/measure we will turn to. I will do something to them they would not want done to themselves. But again, what we need to focus on here is the bigger question. It seems absolutely silly for Christians to argue against the GR. And I think it is just as odd for the GR to be positioned againt the Christian. But again I think this gets back to how the terms are being used. Again, there is a sense that we all would agree the GR is objective.
But as best I can discern, to promote the GR as objective in this sense is arbitrary.