A very popular theistic argument goes along the lines that without God, there would be no objective morality. There is objective morality, therefore God exists.

I think there hasn't been too much elaboration as why this is the case. I've been thinking about the issue, and I would say it comes to existence of morality and justice, and what is great and not, there has to be a correctness in all details to the issue for these to be real. I also then contend that humans are not correct in all details of greatness, morality and justice.

Yes we might almost all agree upon somethings being unmoral or somethings being moral, somethings being just and somethings being unjust, but we differ on other things and don't even have a solid opinion on some issues.

But there seems to be a need that is a correct view to all the things that involve morality, justice, and greatness, and when we begin to say there isn't, it put's question morality, justice, and greatness.

There is more to it, our view even if sometimes wrong, is not baseless. We have some basis to it. Our perspective however we might say is twisted when it's wrong. But what's it twisted from?
If morality was all within a human being, how can a person have a twisted view to a moral issue? What is he twisted from. There seems to have to be a universal moral reality that we are being twisted from. And when we are correct, what is this based upon? It seems again, it can't just be our inner thoughts, but there has to be a relationship with a reality that morality, justice, and greatness have an absolute reality.

Now I would go further that there is infinite degrees of possible moral highness, and part of morality is knowing the greatness of each stage, and what makes one greater then the other. What makes one person greater then another. We might not always know, but there has to be a reality to it.

It seems as well, all infinite stages must have a basis in a reality, like how our morality needs it. This again, follows from the idea that every detail of morality, justice, and greatness must have a correctness for morality, justice, and greatness to be true at all.

It seems when you think of it, the highest possible stage of greatness, morality, and justice, must have a reality as well. This just follows from contemplation.

That reality to me would be a being that is worthy of Worship.

Furthermore, it seems to be the case, that this is not a reality that can come to being, but must be eternal. If it was something that can just come into being, it would make morality, justice, and greatness arbitrary when it's not.

Well, I'll be glad to share my views for whatever they're worth. I can tell you right now they aren't going to match up with yours MysticKnight. And ironically that actually supports my views (i.e. that morality is necessarily subjective)



The very reason I don't buy into those arguments is precisely because I personally view morality as being entirely subjective.

I mean, sure a lot of humans are going to agree on a lot of things. Don't poke me in the eye it hurts. Well duh? Poking people in the eyes is probably going to agreed upon as being an immortal action.

So there's going to be a lot of commonality, but to suggest that this equates to an objective morality has no grounds. We can already see that all humans do not agree on the morality of things mere same-gender loving intimacy. So it should be blatantly obviously from this that morality could never hope to be purely objective.



That would only follow if you went into contemplation convinced that morality has to be objective. Only then could you pretend to come up with an "Absolutely Perfect Morality"



But there's a huge folly in this kind of thinking. What if after your contemplation you came up with your ideal Perfect Morality, and then you discovered that your deity didn't agree with YOU?

Then what?

Here you are judging whether a diety is worthy of Worship based on whether or not you personally consider that deity to have Perfect Moral Standards. What if you disagreed?

This a huge problem I have with something like the Biblical God, for example. If the Bible is a correct description of the Moral Mindset of the Biblical God then no, I could not worship it. The moral values of that God are simply far beneath what I would personally hold to be "Good Moral Standards"



Well, of course not. You're thinking in terms of an "Absolute Perfect Moral System". That's an erroneous idea right there.

If such a perfect absolute system existed, you're right, it would be highly unlikely to come into being by accident. But we have no reason to believe that such a Perfect Morality Code could even exist.

In fact how would you even go about defining such a thing?

Would it simply be a Moral System that "everyone" agree on?

If so, we most certainly have no reason to believe that any such system exists or even could exist.

And if not, then what about the people who disagree with it? How can it be an absolute perfect moral system if everyone doesn't even agree with it?

As far as I can see, morality has to be subjective. It makes no sense to even try to imagine a perfect moral system. Perfect with respect to what?

The whole idea of putting a God in charge of that in the first place is so the God has the last word whether anyone else likes it or not. Their opinions simply don't count.

Define morality, Justice, and greatness in a capacity which can be physically measured then I will get back with your answer.

What is "objective" morality...as opposed to "subjective?"

An absolute reality for notions?

Is-ought without even demonstrating the is. So no (even if you could demonstrate objective morality, is-ought would still bite you in the ass).

(February 9, 2012 at 2:16 am)Abracadabra Wrote: The very reason I don't buy into those arguments is precisely because I personally view morality as being entirely subjective.

I mean, sure a lot of humans are going to agree on a lot of things. Don't poke me in the eye it hurts. Well duh? Poking people in the eyes is probably going to agreed upon as being an immortal action.

But if morality is all subjective, you can't really say a person has a wrong view or right view. You couldn't criticize another persons moral judgment.

Also just because we all agree on something doesn't mean it is correct if it is subjective.

It seems we can't say anything is right or wrong, and if it's all subjective, we shouldn't really try to have any moral view, because it can't be said to be correct.

There is basically no morality if this is true. But this is not something I personally can believe, I understand there is moral nihilist, but I can't deny something to me that is manifest.

Quote:So it should be blatantly obviously from this that morality could never hope to be purely objective.

I don't think differences in opinion show there can't be a moral objectivity. Right now, perhaps most people will be corrupted and twisted from the true objective morality, but it doesn't mean no human can achieve views that are all in line with objective morality.

It maybe extremely difficult, but I don't see how you can conclude it's impossible, just because people differ on the issue.

Quote:That would only follow if you went into contemplation convinced that morality has to be objective.

Sure, or if there is a such thing as morality. To me, subjective morality is but a delusion, it's not really morality, as we originally understood the word.

Quote:But there's a huge folly in this kind of thinking. What if after your contemplation you came up with your ideal Perfect Morality, and then you discovered that your deity didn't agree with YOU?

I would have to change my view, because the diety would be what is the true objective morality, while my view would have been twisted and corrupted due to various reasons.

Quote:Here you are judging whether a diety is worthy of Worship based on whether or not you personally consider that deity to have Perfect Moral Standards. What if you disagreed?

No, I know it has perfect moral standards, but I don't know necessarily what all those standards are. However, perhaps with enough soul searching and reflection with pure intention, you can realize all the perfect moral standards.

The way I see it, we are somehow linked and connected to this reality, and that reality is related with our own existence.

Our minds due to various factors can have a wrong view of morality, but, there will be something in the soul, with deep reflection, that can bring us back to the correct view.

This is why we feel we can change people's minds about wrong things.

Take for example, killing apostates in Islam. This feeling felt wrong with me even while I was Muslim which is why I never believed it.

Many other Muslims, due to hadiths and their scholars, will believe apostates are to be killed.

However, I argue, deep down inside, their is something telling them it is wrong, but they are suppressing it.

So to me, just because people differ, it doesn't prove that these objective morality doesn't exist or we have no access to it.

At any rate, to me it seems such a reality must exist, for morality at all to be true, otherwise it's nothing but a delusion.

At least to me, it seems by the nature of morality, greatness, and justice, is that they are eternal, and it's not even matter about coming out due to chance or not, this is not my argument.

It seems to me, that the proposition that the Creator once didn't have morality, and then invented morality, is impossible. This would make morality arbitrary. Rather it be must eternal nature, but the nature of morality is in person hood. The same is true of greatness and justice. Neither of these things can be simply invented even by the Creator. Their nature shows they are eternal.

But what is this eternal reality but God?

Therefore I do believe the nature of greatness, morality, and justice, prove the existence of God.

---

(February 9, 2012 at 2:19 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Define morality, Justice, and greatness in a capacity which can be physically measured then I will get back with your answer.

Obviously these things are not like physical objects, but they can be measured through our own consciousness.

(February 9, 2012 at 2:25 am)Minimalist Wrote: What is "objective" morality...as opposed to "subjective?"

I don't feel like getting into a war of semantics/

(February 9, 2012 at 3:09 am)Epimethean Wrote: An absolute reality for notions?

Morality, justice, and greatness, aren't just notions.

Whether or not we are correct has stopped us from doing something exactly when? Morality works, until it doesn't.

Perhaps right now most people are closer to objective morality, who are you to say?

Our original understandings of a great many things was hilariously, fantastically wrong.

If there were deity you would still have a problem regarding morality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
We solve nothing when we simply redefine good as "god".

You don't even "know" that it exists, so what knowledge can you claim regarding it's own morality or standards?

You believed this before you attempted an argument, your argument was not convincing, unsurprisingly you continue to believe this after having made such an unconvincing argument.

Ah, ah, (and this one is just for Ace), as to your conclusion MK. A does not prove B without first proving A...lol.

MysticKnight’s line of reasoning sounds both reasonable and compelling. According to most atheists questions of morality are adjudicated by power relations. Prior to their revolution, the American Founders struggled with this very question. In a monarchy the authority of the law resides in the king. The king is the power that defines and enforces the law. The king also bestows rights upon his subjects by using his power to set the permissible boundaries of his subject’s liberty. Thus in the absence of the king’s power where does the law get its authority? The Founders had to ground human rights and law in a higher authority than any one person or human institution: the Creator.

What if nature itself serves as the creator? Grounding notions of right and wrong in nature provides one possible source for an atheistic morality. Some present the case that evolutionary pressure forces human society to adopt norms of behavior that ensure our survival as a species. But that line of reasoning also returns to “might makes right.”

In order to judge some action or behavior intrinsically right or wrong it must be compared with some standard deemed to be valid. To determine if something is good or true, then there must be some perception, however limited, of what is good-in-itself and what is true-in-i tself. That is why theists, like me, believe in a metaphysical source for the Good and the Truth, regardless of the particular doctrines of our respective faiths.

You seemed to have missed the bit about demonstrating that such things actually exist, before you drew conclusions based upon them. No worries, so did he. What we had to do to prop up what may very well be a fairy tale (in this case morality) lends exactly how much credibility to the notion of a god? It isn't surprising to me that human beings leveraged one fairy tale to support another, we do it all the time.