Morality Without God?

[Byblos]

Love is the beginning and the end of morality. It is an end in itself. The GR is the logic of love. Simple as that.

And other than stating love is some kind of undefinable primitive emotion you have nothing else to go on. God IS love, that's what the Bible says. See how easy it is to ground it in objectivity?

[PaulSacramento]

Christ explicitly "hung the entire divine revelation" of the OT (Law on Prophets) on the Golden Rule:

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

This shows that the two formulations of the Golden Rule are equivalent.

I get the impression that you were creating confusion by applying my reference to the OT, which was the "entire divine revelation" that had been written at that time, with the later NT revelation. If so, that is nothing but confusion. It should be obvious what I meant from context.

It is important to understand that the GR is a starting point, not the end or an end unto itself.

Love is the beginning and the end of morality. It is an end in itself. The GR is the logic of love. Simple as that.

That is an interesting interpretation of what Christ MEANT when he said that.
Not sure I agree, but to each their own of course.
Not sure where you get the idea of "entire divine revelation" of the OT Laws ( all 600 plus of them) "hangs" on that one commandment.
Jesus was stating that on those to prime commandments - love God and love thy neighbor as thy self- are the core, the base, the foundation of the REST of the Laws.
The "legitimacy" of that law and divine revelation do NOT rest upon them.
That implies that if one does NOT love God or his neighbour that the divine revelation of the Law was NOT divine, which makes ALL the law subjective to IF a person DOES those 2 commandments.


As for the GR being the "logic" of love, only if by love you mean "self love" since the GR implies consequential love ( do to others what YOU WANT done to you).

[jlay]

Spock:
I think it is safe to say that Craig would follow realism, that moral values exist independent of the human mind. That they are REAL values. The fact that Craig claims they are obvious doesn't discount this and force him into the weak objective definition of morality. And thus I think you've made errors rearding Craig's argument. I would also say it's false to say ontology presupposes epistomology, which was adressed regarding the post where I mentioned the ruler. Regarding the reductio, here would be the syllogism:

"a. Craig's argument proves God's existence by allowing the possibility of the existence of non-physical, mind-independent reality (i.e., objective moral values) b. But non-physical, mind-independent reality (i.e., objective moral
values) don't exist.
c. Therefore, Craig's argument is false, since it proposes the absurdity rejected in (b)."

Regarding (b), you would have to more than assert it. Athiest don't believe in the existence of objective moral values (in the strong sense). And yes (b) is the topic of much debate.

Quote from friend: "Regarding his (Spock's) nominalism, the problem here is that he's using words like "right" and "wrong" to refer to things that don't really exist apart from the mind. That is, those words have no corresponding reality in the extra-mental world. They're just concepts that refer to concepts, and those concepts have no root in reality. But Craig is a realist of sorts. He thinks that universals correspond to real existence in the objective world. So this all just goes back to the very, very, very old problem of realism vs. nominalism. Craig would just use a reductio against Spock's position, insofar as nominalism in general makes all knowledge of anything impossible, and moral nominalism in particular (what Spock holds at a minimum) makes all knowledge of moral issues impossible. We're just right back to his personal preference for the GR as his "objective" ruler over and against someone else's "might makes right" and someone else's divine command theory."

"The person who asserts might makes right or divine command is just mistaken. We may all have the right ruler and come to the right conclusion about whether any given act is right or wrong, but the underlying issue is not whether or not we can know if any given action is right or wrong, but rather, what the words "right" and "wrong" refer to. Do they refer to something that exists in reality itself, apart from the human mind, or do they just refer to a consistency with some personally accepted axiom (e.g., the GR, might makes right, lex talionis, etc.)? If Spock wants to say that divine command theory is MISTAKEN, then he is presuming REAL moral value, which is Craig's point."

[BryanH]

How we determine whether something is correct is different than whether it REALLY is CORRECT. You keep repeating the same thing. People are subjective. They make subjective decisions. So, is everyone correct?

I already answered this a few time by now: something is correct if the majority says it's correct and if society chooses to enforce that rule.

On the other side, there are moral values which exist only at informal level and which are determined by a smaller or larger group.

But as a conclusion: there are MORAL RULES which are ENFORCED. Why do you you think we need enforcing? Because people have objective morality right? If they would have that, we wouldn't need enforcing.

You aren't answering the questions. Is it equally moral to protect the innocent versus do nothing? Why won't you answer these questions?

I told you that moral rules don't just appear out of thin air. Societies make up rules. You already have your answer. Look around and tell me the answer for your question.

By the way, I think that Spock already answered your question(s) already. Do you want me to repeat what he said? I think he was pretty clear.

But to answer your question: There is no answer for your question because it is subjective. It is simply a reformulation of my initial assertion: justified killing and unjustified killing.

Kill the ones that kill the innocent or don't kill the ones that kill the innocent?

No matter how you spin it, there is always subjectivity. How can you be objective?

But the most important and funny thing: what's the point of OM if you as a human being are subjective.

That is how human beings are. They are subjective and you are trying to tell me that there is OM.
Ok. So?

It's not like you can use it. You are not a robot. Robots can be objective because they are designed that way and they don't do anything outside their objective parameters.

You are not designed that way. I have already given enough explanations in this direction and I think that Spock has already given enough pertinent examples of the mechanics of the GR.

The GR basically explains how the education or moral values works in a modern society.

In order to actually prove OM, you would have to actually demonstrate that objective moral values are abstract.

Can you do that?

[B. W.]

In order to actually prove OM, you would have to actually demonstrate that objective moral values are abstract.

Can you do that?

How do you define abstract?
-
-
-

[BryanH]

How do you define abstract?

*considered apart from concrete existence
*without reference to a particular example or object

[jlay]

I already answered this a few time by now: something is correct if the majority says it's correct and if society chooses to enforce that rule.

Fine, but you didn't address examples I provided, which puts this to the test.

But as a conclusion: there are MORAL RULES which are ENFORCED. Why do you you think we need enforcing? Because people have objective morality right? If they would have that, we wouldn't need enforcing.

That doesn't logically follow. Sorry. If OM exist, then it exist outside of man. It's like saying, if math interprets objective reality then students will not need instructors.

I told you that moral rules don't just appear out of thin air. Societies make up rules. You already have your answer. Look around and tell me the answer for your question.

Bryan, for the umpteenth time. that is not in question. It isn't debatable whether societies make up rules, they do. The question is how do we KNOW the rules are CORRECT? Saying we know what is correct because people decide what is correct is begging the question. It leaves the word correct (right/wrong/good/bad) devoid of any meaning. Completely arbitrary. What is correct one day maybe incorrect the next.
For example (which you will probably ignore) Slavery. In the 1800s slavery was a societal norm in the Americas and protected under the law. At one time the majority of people viewed it as acceptable. So, the question is this. Were abolitionists CORRECT to oppose slavery? Was slavery in this sense WRONG, or is it simply arbitrary and up to personal preference? If the majority rule as you say then correct has already been determined. If it is arbitrary then couldn't we just as easily say the abolitionists were wrong by attempting to force their moral ethic on slave holders? Under your worldview, I don't see how you can say otherwise. Now, let's put yourself in the scenario. You are a person living in 1810. Slavery is overwhelmingly supported and deemed morally acceptable. Since it is so, would you say it is morally equal to fall in line with society versus seeking abolition and that one position has no more moral truth than the other?

No matter how you spin it, there is always subjectivity. How can you be objective?
But the most important and funny thing: what's the point of OM if you as a human being are subjective.

Yes, people are subjective. They have things they subjectively prefer. Many times we've given the example of vanilla and chocolate. So, I could never say that vanilla is better than chocolate, only that I prefer it. Actually, I could say it, it would just be rhetoric. So, what if everyone in a town likes vanilla and hates chocolate, then a new person moves to town and they like chocolate but hate vanilla. Is this person wrong? Of course not. So, I'm not saying people can't be subjective. However when we say WRONG, what does that word mean? What does it refer to? If there is no OM, then it is simply a synonym for "not preferred." So, is that what we mean when we say that torturing children for fun is wrong? Are we saying, "I don't prefer it. But, someone else may, so it isn't objectively wrong. If the majority prefer it, then it's right." ? Uh, no, we aren't saying that. If you are, then ultimately someone who prefers vanilla is no different than someone who prefers to torture children for pleasure.

You are not designed that way.

You infer a designer? Why? Because if we are in fact designed, then there is something outside of man (a designer), and thus an objective source. And this is the objective sense that is strong. That human existance is not a coincidence of unguided natural forces. If it is, then even if the GR is objective in the weak sense, it is meaningless.

The GR basically explains how the education or moral values works in a modern society.

Sure. Again it isn't a matter of how we know moral values, but when we use words such as 'right' and 'wrong' just what do those words refer to.
For example many cultures through time have rejected the GR in place of other moral ethics. Are you saying there is no objective difference in the GR versus 'kill or be killed'?

Again Bryan, if you are right (and by your own admission that word holds no intrinsic value) then your opinion, like mine is subjective. (Not really any disagreement there.) So, your opinion on morals being subjective has no more value than the opinion that moral values exist independent of the human mind. By that logic you wouldn't even have a motive to argue your position. You see, you really think that you are right, that morals are ONLY subjective. Yet you present that point as if it is objectively true. Which of course is contradictory and self-defeating. If there is no objective truth, moral or otherwise, then all opinions are subjective and no basis outside of individual preference. So, following your line of thinking, if the majority of people say that morality is objective then it becomes so. That of course is absurd. You might even agree and then argue against it, but only because you refuse to follow your logic where it leads.
You can keep saying people and society do things subjectively. I agree. But, that is not where the core of the issue is addressed. It's meaningless to the discussion, because we both agree.

[B. W.]

How do you define abstract?

*considered apart from concrete existence
*without reference to a particular example or object

Accountability...
-
-
-

[B. W.]

Hmmm,

I think Craig's last two paragraphs is where this current discussion is at.

Beginning of William Lane Craig – Quote:
William Lane Craig – Closing Statement

Before I look at those two contentions that I've defended tonight, let me just be very clear. I did not say that the worth of people lies in their love of Christ. I said it lies in Christ’s love for them, that God loves each one of us enough that He would send His son to die for us, even those of us who do not believe in Him and repudiate Him. That is what I said, and I think that’s important to understand.

(I) I argued that supernaturalism provides a sound foundation for morality, and I think that’s become very clear in tonight’s debate. (1) If you affirm that there is a God, a divine lawgiver, then there is objective right and wrong according to His commands, which flow from His own good, just, loving, and holy nature. Moreover, (2) moral accountability exists because God holds us accountable for what we do.

(II) Does naturalism provide a sound foundation for morality? I argue that it doesn't.

(1) On the naturalistic view, objective right and wrong do not exist. Professor Taylor, in his last speech, tried to confuse the issue by drawing in Fletcher’s situation ethics. Fletcher’s situation ethics were neither conventionalistic, nor were they naturalistic. His ethics were guided by an objective value, the objective value of love. Now how that’s applied in different situations may vary, and will vary from situation to situation; but I agree with that. But the point is that Fletcher’s is an objectivist ethic, not a conventionalist ethic. Love is an absolute moral principle for him. Moreover, Fletcher was a theist, as far as I know. He was a clergyman, so that this is not a naturalistic ethic. What is love on a naturalistic view? It’s a chemical reaction in the brain, an electrochemical impulse, hormones coursing through bodies. Love is denuded of any sort of moral or ethical significance on a naturalistic worldview. And so I don’t think we've seen any basis for affirming that things are really right or wrong, if God does not exist.

(2) I argued that there’s no moral accountability on a naturalistic worldview, and I think that that’s been demonstrated in tonight’s debate.

Then I offered a three point critique of Taylor’s virtue ethics:

(1) His virtues are just amoral. He doesn't deny it, but now he says, "Well, I was just trying to provoke people to think, and the quotations are taken out of context." Well, yes, they are out of context in the sense that I expected Professor Taylor to first present his view in his opening speech, so that my criticisms would apply to it. My criticisms are entirely just and entirely correct philosophically, but they appear somewhat out of context because he didn't give his view first for me to attack. Also, with regard to stirring people to think, I think as philosophers we have to be responsible in what we say and write because we will affect what students say and do. Nietzsche also wrote a book called Beyond Good and Evil, and that book was read by people like Hitler and Stalin and caused some of the gross atrocities of the twentieth century because Nietzsche affirmed that there is no good and evil. And as I read what Professor Taylor said about the superior person, the proud man, I thought of Nietzsche’s Übermensch, the superman. The echoes of Nietzsche ran through that book and troubled me deeply.

(2) I argued that Christian ethics are better than Professor Taylor’s virtue ethics [tape unintelligible] on that point.

And finally, (3) I said Taylor’s virtue ethics are morally repugnant. Notice that he’s never really denied any of the allegations that I've made tonight.

So I think it’s evident that naturalism just doesn't do the trick. We need to have a supernatural basis to provide an objective foundation for our moral lives, for the values that we all hold dear and firm and intuitively sense, and we need God to provide moral accountability for our lives, so that our moral choices become significant and acts of self sacrifice are not robbed of meaning and become just empty gestures.

Therefore, I’d like to close just with a challenge to you. If you have been seeking for a foundation for your ethical life, for what’s right and wrong in life, I’d want to encourage you to look into the Christian world and life view. Pick up a New Testament and read the Sermon on the Mount, read the ethics of Jesus, and ask yourself if this couldn't really be true. I found that this is a principle upon which I can order and guide my life, and I believe you can find this as well, if you look at it with an open mind.

Read More on this Debate Here

End Quote 'from William Lane Craig'

In light of this, I pose this for discussion: denial of accountability toward God is what people and Like BryanH and Spock want and desire above all things as they think this is the greatest moral good there is. So much so that they desire push this and force this view upon all humankind at all cost. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

My question is: if all morality is merely humanly subjectively derived as suggested in this discussion, wouldn't it be prone to error due to the fallible nature of human beings? So, are human beings fallible or not?

So let's ask Spock and BryanH this: have you ever made a mistake? Is your judgment so superior and perfect that it can be trusted to be the ultimate objective standard for all humanity to live by?

If that is so then this would mean that only Spock’s and BryanH’s objective subjective interpretations are what all humanity must be held accountable too. In other words, all people everywhere are morally accountable only to Spock and BryanH because only their judgments are binding. Or they can pass it off this responsibility by stating that all human beings are only accountable to themselves or at best to the majority rule social/cultural norms.

Look again at what Craig stated again:

(I) I argued that supernaturalism provides a sound foundation for morality, and I think that’s become very clear in tonight’s debate. (1) If you affirm that there is a God, a divine lawgiver, then there is objective right and wrong according to His commands, which flow from His own good, just, loving, and holy nature. Moreover, (2) moral accountability exists because God holds us accountable for what we do.

(II) Does naturalism provide a sound foundation for morality? I argue that it doesn't.

….So I think it’s evident that naturalism just doesn't do the trick. We need to have a supernatural basis to provide an objective foundation for our moral lives, for the values that we all hold dear and firm and intuitively sense, and we need God to provide moral accountability for our lives, so that our moral choices become significant and acts of self sacrifice are not robbed of meaning and become just empty gestures.

If not, we’ll have to rely upon the changing whims of Spock, BryanH, Nietzsche, Hegel, Society, the ever changing whims of human distortions of what makes right –right and wrong – wrong.

So I pose this: Can people ever be guilty of calling evil good and good evil?
-
-
-

[neo-x]

I already answered this a few time by now: something is correct if the majority says it's correct and if society chooses to enforce that rule.

You mean, like the Holocaust...sorry but you lost me here.

[PaulSacramento]

The GR is starting to sound more like "might makes right" or "majority rules'...
Whatever the "majority" views as "correct" or "good" I mean.

[PaulSacramento]

Maybe, as someone said, accountability is the issue, yes?
With God, one is accountable to another ( in the case of God, a supreme being we can't [nonsense] our way with), but with the GR, one is accountable to oneself it seems.
It seems to me that in judging God as "less moral" we are basically saying " Who are YOU to judge me".

[RickD]

BryanH wrote:
I already answered this a few time by now: something is correct if the majority says it's correct and if society chooses to enforce that rule.

neo-x wrote:
You mean, like the Holocaust...sorry but you lost me here.

Ouch!!! BryanH said, as he tucked his tail between his legs, and admitted defeat.

[Byblos]

BryanH wrote:
I already answered this a few time by now: something is correct if the majority says it's correct and if society chooses to enforce that rule.

neo-x wrote:
You mean, like the Holocaust...sorry but you lost me here.

Ouch!!! BryanH said, as he tucked his tail between his legs, and admitted defeat.

Well since he already admitted OM doesn't exist, it's all subjective (albeit according to majority rule, which can change and shift with ebb and flow of the tide) I would presume Bryan would have no issue whatsoever arguing that the Holocaust is morally justifiable, at least in Nazi Germany era. That is if Bryan wishes to be consistent with his stance.

[jlay]

BW,

I think it all gets down, as Craig points out, objective in what sense. In the weak sense I understand what Spock is saying. But as you show with the quote, that is not the definition of OM that WLC refers to.
If man is a result of natural unguided processes, then so is self-awareness. And thus, so is self-love. And if love then so the GR. It is objectively without meaning. It is all subject to the fact that man through unguided, natural processes is self-aware. But love isn't some ideal, only an idea. A concept that will die with man.