I think you’re setting up a strawman argument. Certainly there are Theists out there who make those claims. If you’d do some research on the many threads in GD about morality and its relationship to religion, you’d find some great arguments on how the morality is not always based in religion and many Theists agreeing with the conclusions.
Hence, your claim, as I see it, that Theists are trying to force their religious rules upon the rest of are false. Certainly there are some Theists who believe this, but they represent a small segment of the total population of Theists.
Well, she is trying to say that, but I don’t think she’s being disingenious about it. She said that in her first post. It’s a little bit like Plato’s “useful lie” argument in The Republic, I think.
And of course, the premise is false. Firstly, you can believe in objective moral standards without believing in God, so, if no one believed in God that wouldn’t neccesarily get rid of an idea of objective morality.
Secondly, even people who believe all morality is subjective don’t tend to act “immorally”. You can have a community of moral relativists without it leading to chaos.
And that is bad . . . because? Personally, I like for my ideas to have some weight. Of course, society manages to prevent anarchy by imposing a set of common laws.
I would say it’s the fact that the “rules of god” are all derived from literary works authored by a small number of people. The veracity of their claims of divine origins for their rules cannot be verified. So, in essence, by following the “rules of God”, we are following the will a small number of people instead of the will of the majority (even if the majority agrees with the rules, the reason you’re following them is still rooted in the ideals of just a few people).
Thus, following your “Rules of God” is no better than following the “Rules of Bob”, or the rules of any other, arbitrary person.
As far as I was aware, our rules (e.g. laws), do apply equally to everyone in the country, regardless of class. Different countries have their own laws, of course, as is to be expected when they tend to have both different individual ideas of what should be allowed, as well as different deities.
Why not the Code of Hammurabi, or some other arbitrary codification of laws? If all you’re interested in is having the same laws cover everybody, then why use the laws presented by one particular God? After all, 2/3 of the world’s population aren’t Christian.
And, as a side note, weren’t all the laws of the Israelites rescinded by Jesus? Wouldn’t that include the Ten Commandments?
Well, this piece of matter, for one, would prefer to exist in a configuration that allows for the continuation of biological processes; I’ve become quite fond of most of the chemical reactions taking place in my innards. To that end, laws that result in a higher probability that those chemical reactions can continue, while at the same time not hampering my freedom to locomote about this ball of rock overly much, are welcome and desirable.
Yes, I am fully aware this discussion is not about economics, just merely trying to point out that there can be a discussion of what is and isn’t ‘best’ for all of us without mudding up the waters with religion.
How would one go about identifying which morals are objective?I know how to test for the objectivity of gravity but how do I verify whether a moral or morals is/are objective.?Trying to define morality as objective is like trying to define “virtue” objectively.
Sure they can, or at least believe objective morality exists. The Epicureans, for example (as well as a lot of other Greek philosophical schools) were atheistic, but said that there are some needs and desires that are inherant to man, and universal. If needs are universal…if there’s something that we all want, then it follows that there are certain actions that are good for everyone to do…those actions that allow us to fufill our needs and desires.
This isn’t unique to Greece. Buddhism is more or less an agnostic philosophy, but it has a very strict moral code, coming from its core belief that attachment to the material world is the cause of suffering. According to most accounts, Confucius was an atheist, but, starting with the belief that people are naturally social and hierarchical, he developed a complicated code of appropriate behavior within social relationships.
And, btw, when you made that statement, you’ve just set an objective moral standard without God…self interest. You could rewrite the belief as “An action is moral if it’s within someone’s self-interest to perform the action.” Of course, then you need to define “self-interest”, and that’s the tricky part.
Capt. Amazing:
Those examples you cited were not examples of objective morality but rather subjective moral ysytems.An objective morality would be undeniable by all but the deranged, just as gravity is.If, for example, murder was objectively wrong then no one would be able to murder anymore than people can walk on air(without technological aid).
No, an objective moral system is one that’s applicable to everyone everywhere. If I say that murder is objectively wrong, then I’m saying that it is always wrong for anyone to murder. A subjective moral system isn’t universally applicable. If I say murder is subjectively wrong, then I’m saying it’s wrong in my culture, time, or situation, but there might be cultures, times, or situations where that murder is not wrong.
And you can have an objective moral system that not everyone agrees with. If I say that murder is objectively wrong, then your failure to agree with that just means that you’re wrong or that you believe a false thing.
You can’t make a comparison between morality and gravity. Gravity is an inherant function of physical bodies. The stone doesn’t roll downhill because it should. It rolls downhill because it has to.
Morality, on the other hand, is a function of will and choice. Only thinking beings, with the ability to choose between outcomes and rank those outcomes, can be moral.
How can it be objectively wrong if I can disagree and my position be equally substantiated as your own?It seems to me you are saying that subjective morality becomes objective simply by someone claiming it is so.If you claim that murder is objectively wrong adn I disagree, I am not by default “wrong”.We have a disagreement about a subjective matter(morality).It is the same as you claiming "Michael Vick is a perfect quarterback."The very word itself cannot be defined objectively.Same with moral/morality.If I could go back in time and murder Adolph Hitler to prevent the murders of 40 million other people(including 6 million jews) then how do you even begiun to substantiate the case for murder being objectively wrong?The very word “wrong” can only be objective in the context of questions which can be answered via logic.
**
But gravity IS objective in that it exists regardless of what our particular perspective, tastes, upbringing etc. may be.If morality were objective then these things which are “wrong” and “right” would be so to any sane person, regardless of culture, era/time, and particular circumstances.
Well, I agree with this to an extant as long as you are not limiting “thinking” to abstract thinking animals such as humans.Dinosaurs had moral codes similar to our own.Even insects develope morals as natural selection dictates for their survival.
What I’m saying is that it’s possible for someone to believe that there exists a universal moral standard without believing in God. I’m not asserting there IS such a moral standard (or that there isn’t), merely that belief in God isn’t a neccesary precondition to believing that a set of moral standards are absolute and universal.
[/quote] It is only the folks who feel a calling higher than what they owe to YOU that keeps you safe.
[/quote]
Is that to imply that without god we would be reduced to anarchy?
I am undecided about the existence of god, yet I am often compelled to be kind, understanding, giving, etc. It’s no “higher calling” that keeps my neighbor safe. It’s empathy, compassion and an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. That’s right, “intrinsic”. The finer points of right and wrong had to be taught to me but the general concept was there from the beginning.
To suggest that an absence of god would reduce us all to a “survival of the fittest” type of chaos is strange to me.
A phrase comes to mind: I can’t see the forest for all the trees.
Is that to imply that without god we would be reduced to anarchy?
I am undecided about the existence of god, yet I am often compelled to be kind, understanding, giving, etc. It’s no “higher calling” that keeps my neighbor safe. It’s empathy, compassion and an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. That’s right, “intrinsic”. The finer points of right and wrong had to be taught to me but the general concept was there from the beginning.
To suggest that an absence of god would reduce us all to a “survival of the fittest” type of chaos is strange to me.
A phrase comes to mind: I can’t see the forest for all the trees.
It is only the folks who feel a calling higher than what they owe to YOU that keeps you safe.
[/quote]
Is that to imply that without god we would be reduced to anarchy?
I am undecided about the existence of god, yet I am often compelled to be kind, understanding, giving, etc. It’s no “higher calling” that keeps my neighbor safe. It’s empathy, compassion and an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. That’s right, “intrinsic”. The finer points of right and wrong had to be taught to me but the general concept was there from the beginning.
To suggest that an absence of god would reduce us all to a “survival of the fittest” type of chaos is strange to me.
A phrase comes to mind: I can’t see the forest for all the trees. **
[/QUOTE]
I have often seen it asked of theistic moral objectivists( but never answered):“If you suddenly realised that the God you believe in did not exist, would YOU begin a campign of reckless adn wanton murder, rape, sodomy and thievery?”
