Ok – I agree here. Anyone can take some axioms and make a standard of morality out of them.
My axiom is that God exists and my relgion is the correct interpretation of his rules.
If there is no God, then anyone’s axiom, including mine is not even a fact; Its an opinion.
Take an axioms like, “Preserving life is the highest virtue,” or “Self pleasure is the highest goal.” If there’s no God, those are opinions. They are neither right nor wrong. One person can believe it, and another not. No mater what axioms you take, there is no objective reason why anyone besides you should them.
My axiom is different. If my axiom is right (which it is ), then all axioms are facts, not opinions. Either preserving life is the highest virtue or it isn’t. It doesn’t mater what you believe. The answer is objective.
Nice post, erl. I would like to ask a simple question of those who make such bald statements as: "All other arguments (social contract, fear of being caught, etc.) break down under the right conditions."
Prove it.
I see lots of statements about what can and cannot be “logical” in an atheist context, but I have yet to see much logic.
—but I believe that their compassion is illogical based on their fundamental assumptions.—
You seem to be using a strange definition of what an “atheist” is. There are no “fundamental assumptions” of atheism. Atheism is not a philosophy: it is a category that classifies people who do not hold a PARTICULAR philosophy (thiesm).
I am atheist. I have very strong moral sentiments.
I have to admit: I can’t even see IN THEORY what a god could have to do with morality. Just because there might or might not be a being that rewards or punishes people for doing certain things doesn’t mean that those things are right or wrong. Might does not make right. Morality is not subject to anyone’s whim, even god’s.
—My axiom is different. If my axiom is right (which it is ), then all axioms are facts, not opinions. Either preserving life is the highest virtue or it isn’t. It doesn’t mater what you believe. The answer is objective.—
There are no “different” axioms. No axiom is a fact, BY DEFINITION. An axiom is simply an unproven premise.
Either preserving life is the ighest virtue, or it isn’t. God’s opinion or mandates make no difference to what is right or wrong.
You’re right. I don’t get what you said, because it makes no sense;)
Atrocities are generally things that hurt or kill other humans. An example would be torturing and/or killing large numbers of people because they do not believe in the same god as you.
Yes, I would say that’s basically correct, although I wouldn’t have phrased it that way.
It’s not. I can’t force others to act morally, but neither can you or your God. Your standard is just as arbitrary as mine. The only difference is that you have deluded yourself into thinking that yours was handed down to you by a sky-magician.
Of course it does. Your brand of morality is not objective at all. Just because you say it is does not make it so.
In other words, you don’t take the Bible literally at it’s word. Doesn’t sound all that objective to me. Sounds to me like humans deciding what is God’s word. Which is what I have been saying all along - morals are defined by humans.
There was a recent study in Scientific American where they got two complete strangers and gave Person A $100. They then said that person A could offer Person B any amount of money out of is $100, if person B accepted, they would both keep their respective share of the money, if person B didn’t accept, neither would get any money.
Now looking at this through a logical (game theory) perspective, the correct action by person A would be to offer person B $1 and for person B to accept. What commonly happened, though was that person A offered person B $50 or slightly less and that person B would NOT accept most offeres under $30.
There was not much variance from culture to culture and even if the amount of money was raised to something like the monthly income of the participants (Would you decline a Week’s pay if you knew the other person would get 3 Weeks pay?).
Both these actions are illogical from a strictly game theory point of view yet they are both ingrained within the human’s personal moral code.
Either a God exists, or one does not. The statements “God exists” and “God does not exist” are facts. One is a false fact, and one is true fact.
If “God exists” is the true fact, then every action is either moral or immoral. “Fulfilment of pleasure is the highest virtue” is either a true or false fact.
If “God does not exist” is the true fact, then moral statements are mere opinions. They are not facts that are true or false. “Don’t murder” is an interesting rule, just as much as “Choose vanilla ice cream over chocolate”. Telling someone that murder is wrong is as valid as telling them that eating chocolate when you could be eating vanilla, is wrong. They can respond, “Well – that’s nice for you, but I prefer chocolate and murder.” “Don’t murder” is an opinion.
By this, I just mean that if a person uses “fear of being caught” as the only reason not to murder, he should have the intelectual honesty to admit that if the risk of being caught were low enough, and the gain high enough, he would murder.
Similarly, if “social contract” is the reason people stay civilized, people should be willing to break the social contract so long as they won’t be caught, and their actions wont cause the social framework to collapse into anarchy.
Some atheists are consistant here. They’ll say:
Some atheists are not so consistant.
Why, blowery, is hurting a person any differnent then hurting a tree? Is burning a tree an atrocity? Why is killing an animal any different than killing a person (from the original OP)? Is eating a hamburger an attrocity?! Why not?
An atheist takes some set of axioms and derives a moral standard from them. He could even include in the axioms, and axiom that says his axioms are binding on other people. His morality is mandated.
Still, if he decides to ignore his moral rules, perhaps because he can kill and not be caught, THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCE. If he takes as an axiom that there is a consequence to ignoring his rules, that something will happen to him even if he isn’t caught, then he’s not an atheist anymore.
Then you’re agreeing with me. We’re not debating whether God exists here. We’re debating whether morality can be mandated if God doesn’t exist. We both agree that if there is no God, morality cannot be mandated.
Are you in the “God exists” world here, or the “God doesn’t exist”. In the “God exists” world, the written bible is just as important as the Oral Law. Both are from God and its hopeless to try to interpret one without the other. What each individual Hebrew word in the bible means, is only known through oral law. Why would you trust the meaning of each word to be transmitted orally but ignore the other oral teachings cncerning the rules for witnesses and capital punishment!
In the “God does not exist” world, we seem to agree. Yes – morals are dictated by humans, they’re arbitrary, and to answer the OP, they cannot be mandated.
So, in the “God exists” world, here’s how it works. We define God to be all-good. God’s rules are the standard by which all actions are judged. Whenever there is a choice, the choice God “wants” (a funny work when talking about God) you to take, is defined to be the “right” choice. It doesn’t mater whether there is reward or punishement. That’s not what makes the right choice right.
People often call God omnibenevelant; I do. Its sort of circular. Of course God is all-good. Its more precise to say that he defines what good is.
How did you jump from “a god exists” to “this god has created an absolute moral structure to human existence”? I don’t see why the second phrase is implicit in the first.
Why? Why can’t humans have an innate objective morality as described by their objectively defined physiological make-up? “A god exists/ a god does not exist” says nothing about the state of morality. I don’t see why you think it does.
There are other options besides “fact” and “opinion” with regards to morality, but that may depend on what you mean by “opinion.” Is supporting the theory of evolution just an opinion? What about laws of electricity? Many people consider those facts and they don’t depend on the existence of a god, either.
You crack me up, MHand. You castigate atheists for not having morals, then argue with any atheist who says he does have morals.
I can’t speak for other atheists, since atheism is not a philosophy (it is merely the lack of a particular belief), but I do not consider fear of being caught as the only reason not to murder. I avoid doing bad things simply because that is what I have chosen to do. It is in my nature as a human being to have empathy for my fellow creatures, and I didn’t need a bearded guy on a cloud to make that choice for me.
If a persone[sic] uses “fear of eternal damnation” as the only reason not to murder, he should have the intelectual [sic] honesty to admit that if the risk of eternal damnation were low enough, and the gain high enough, he would murder.
Are you implying that people are too stupid to figure out the answers to these questions, so we therefore need to have the answers written down in a magical book? I disagree.
But while we’re on the subject of burning things, I’ll tell you something that I consider wrong - burning a defenseless animal because you think it will please your God. If God created the animal, how would it please Him for humans to destroy it? But I’m guessing you don’t do this anymore, even though it’s clearly discussed in the Bible. What do you do in that case, invoke your “Oral Law” loophole again?
You have me at a loss here. I’m not familiar with this “Oral Law” thing. Could you explain it please? It sounds to me like a simple case of humans deciding right and wrong, and then using some tortured logic to justify that it is the objective word of God. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to explain how it is that you know Oral Law is the objective word of God.
Well, this is one of the saddest excuses for a “proof” that I have seen on this board. I’m not even sure where to begin criticizing it. How about a simple list:[ul]
[li]“Fear of being caught” isn’t a moral foundation which I run across very often, but how is “not admiting the consequences” a breakdown in that view? It is entirely possible that if I held such a view I would deny my willingness ot engage in certain behaviors simply because doing so would increase your vigiliance, and hence my risk of being caught.[/li][li]“Social contract” is not exclusively a “fear of being caught” proposition. Human beings do not make decisions in a vaccuum, and it is specious to pretend that an ethical decision can only be evaluated within a context of immediately forseeable consequences.[/li][li]A proof in logic generally involves establishing a logical context, agreeing upon axioms, setting forth a proposition, and then demonstrating same. Now, in an informal context such as a message board, some of these requirements are necessarily relaxed. We can assume, for instance, that demonstrating a contradiction in a line of reasoning suffices for “proof by contradiction”. That seems to be the target you are aiming for, but you haven’t even addressed “breakdown of a moral system”, which was your claim.[/li][li]More to the point, your claim was ALL. It is not enough to select a couple of straw-atheists and attack their simplistic foundations for atheistic moralities. You need to make a generalized argument to support your assertion.[/li]It is disingenuous to pretend that self-interest is the only possible source of an atheistic morality. Perhaps your own religious morality is based upon nothing more than personal gain, but that does not imply that all human beings are as selfish as yourself.[/ul]
—If “God exists” is the true fact, then every action is either moral or immoral. “Fulfilment of pleasure is the highest virtue” is either a true or false fact.—
I’m sorry, but that logic does not follow. I is just as illegitimate as every other definition of morality: you simply are refusing to apply the same criticisms to your own moral system that you apply to others.
—If “God does not exist” is the true fact, then moral statements are mere opinions.—
Whether moral statements are opinions or not can have nothing to do with an empirical fact (i.e. God exists vs. God does not exist). Moral statements are statements of value. By definition, absolute morals would hold no matter what the state of the world was, including a state with or without a god.
—So, in the “God exists” world, here’s how it works. We define God to be all-good.—
You’re hilarious! First you claim that in your “God world,” morality is not an opinion, and then you go and found your entire case on a DEFINITION: which is even WORSE than an opinion (because it’s arbitrary).
—God’s rules are the standard by which all actions are judged.—
i.e., your opinion that god’s opinions are the standard. Instead of just one appeal to mere opinion, you have TWO appeals to mere opinion!
—Whenever there is a choice, the choice God “wants” (a funny work when talking about God) you to take, is defined to be the “right” choice. It doesn’t mater whether there is reward or punishement. That’s not what makes the right choice right.—
We could just as easily say that morality is whatever Bush “wants” (funny word when talking about Bush) us to do. How is your case here any less of a system based on opinion?
This is not even a legitimate moral system: it lacks any discernable meta-ethic.
—People often call God omnibenevelant; I do. Its sort of circular. Of course God is all-good. Its more precise to say that he defines what good is.—
If that is so, then it would be impossible to call god’s will “good,” because that would beg the question. By your definition, ANYTHING god ordered someone to do would be ethical, including (as he does in the OT) the murder of the unborn (the fruit of their wombs should be dashed upon the rocks!).
But this is the most nonsensical result of all. Morality almost by definition cannot have results like this, where good and bad are simply a determinate of something else.
This is supposed to be your knock-down case for theistic morality? For goodness sake, PLATO conclusively dismembered this argument 3 millenia ago!
In any atheistic morality system, actions must be judged to be right or wrong based on some set of axioms or meta-ethics.
The question was wehther such a morality system can be mandated.
Assume it can be mandated. That is, assume there is some set of atheistic axioms that can be used to calculated which actions are right and wrong, and by mandated, we mean that everyone should follow this particular system.
Now consider what happens if someone breaks the rules. What is the consequence? The person did “wrong” according to that particular morality system. But – so what. What’s “wrong” with doing “wrong”. Why does it mater?
The system might include practical reasons why breaking its rules is “wrong”., such as getting caught, feeling guilty, etc., but there what about a situation where none of those practical considerations apply? You won’t be caught, don’t feel guilt, etc.
Now – what’s wrong with breaking the rules? If there’s no consquence, in what way are the rules mandated.
But, if you say the rules are mandated; That is, there is a consquence for breaking them even when you won’t get caught, won’t feel guilty, etc, then the system isn’t atheistic anymore. It must assume some higher all-knowing force that always knows when you break the rules. But, this was an atheistic morality. Contradiction.
Atheistic moralities cannot mandate their rules. They, by definition of being atheistic, must admit that there is no consequence to breaking the rules.
Blowero. You seem to think that I think atheists are immoral. I do not believe that; Please don’t take insult.
Since it wasn’t clear, I’ll say explicitly, that I believe:
God exists, defines what is right and wrong, revealed his system to us, and mandates that we follow it.
Most atheists follow most of God’s rules.
No atheists or theists follow all of God’s rules.
I’m not saying atheists are immoral. I’m simply saying that in some imaginary world where God didn’t exist, morality could not be mandated.
You’re right. That doesn’t follow. I believe in the world where God exists and did mandate an absolute morality.
There seems to be no one on this thread arguing that God exists but didn’t mandate rules for humans to follow, though those would not be inconsistant axioms.
Surely, if God exists and mandated rules, people should follow them. So defining “good” to be “following God’s rules” is logical.
God-based morality IS arbitrary in that whatever God says to do IS “good”, no mater what you think. Atheistic based morality is also abitrary because whatever axioms the system uses to define its rules are arbitrary.
Because theistic morality is arbitrary, doesn’t mean its “not an absolute system”. It is absolute because the same set of rules are mandated to all people at all times.
The argument that “God can change his mind and say X is right and Y is wrong therefore the system is as arbitrary as listening to anyone else (Bush)” doesn’t hold.
God can not change his mind. That is, he cannot believe one thing at time T1 and another at time T2. Its not that his rules don’t change; They cannot by definition of the fact that he is all-knowing.
But, the God-based morality is mandated. Whether you like it or not, if God exists
), then all axioms are facts, not opinions. Either preserving life is the highest virtue or it isn’t. It doesn’t mater what you believe. The answer is objective.