The Moral Argument for God

[Vincent]

And just to be clear, if the Nazis had won the war, killing six million Jews and a couple million other folks would be okay in your view because might makes right? Correct?

This explains Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other atheist regimes, does it not?

I like how you're trying to paint me the villain in this situation - "would be okay in your view ", "other atheist regimes".

I do not support or endorse genocide. I find it terrible and disgusting. 

However, the men who served under Hitler thought it was okay. They thought it was justified and moral. And funnily enough, they had the words "God with us" written on their belts, so please don't try to turn this into some atheist-bashing shit as you are hinting at doing, especially considering that Stalin and Mao acted the way they did out of desire for political and financial power, and not because of their religious views. 

Anyway, back to the point. To the Nazis, killing Jews was an act of morality. So for them, in that place, at that time, it became moral. Because humans make what is moral moral themselves. I am not talking about what I feel about the situation. I am not talking about what other countries felt about it. I am referring only to the Nazis. They killed innocent people, and they called it moral, so it was moral. And in the very very very unlikely event that the Nazis had won the war and conquered the entire civilized world, and in the event that they continued to execute Jews and other minorities and in the very unlikely event that they recruited people from America and England to kill them in their own respective countries, and in the event that those individuals had a way of justifying that to be moral, then it becomes moral. Not because I agree with it. Not because you agree with it. But because morality is defined as the principles that we as humans create concerning distinction between right and wrong. So if a group says, "yes, this is moral" then that is the morality they have created. Does the thought that morality is flexible rather than fixed disturb you? Sorry. But it's the truth. 

Let me explain this more to you. Slavery in America. 200 Years ago, an American might have thought the institution completely moral, and justified it to himself by saying that blacks are property and not people. But now, from your perspective of 200 years in the future, you consider slavery to be immoral. And because there is not a rule created by the universe saying "slavery is immoral" or "slavery is moral", then there is no objective way of saying it is right or wrong. Back then it was moral. Now it is not. Because morality is relative. Take a small child from its mother and transport it back to the early 1800s. Let it be raised by a wealthy plantation family in the south. What will happen to that child? Most likely it will grow up a slaveowner, and feel no guilt for it. But how, when the child had been born in the 21st century, where slavery is immoral? It is because morality depends on circumstances, on culture, and on what society itself thinks, not on what is objective fact. 

Another example. Suppose there was some apocalyptic event like a zombie apocalypse. And suppose we all went into hiding. Now, imagine there's this group of young men who get stuck in a house or fort or whatever together. It's safe there. They can't leave. Imagine they're there for a solid couple months. And imagine this young girl shows up, looking for shelter. And these guys, having not been able to indulge their sexual urges and having been exposed to only males for an extended period of time, find it completely moral to have nonconsensual sex with this girl. She is 16. So right there you got rape and child abuse. But think. To THEM, it is moral, given their circumstances. They see it as "gotta do what you gotta do", and thus it becomes moral. Not objectively moral, mind you, but subjectively moral to them. All morals we have in civilized society (i.e. don't rape, don't steal, don't kill) are dependent on culture and circumstances. But if something falls out of balance, if we don't have enough resources or there's overpopulation or an apocalypse scenario, those morals will change, loosen, and allow people room to do things they might not have previously done. And so morality changes. Because it is subjective. 

I don't think you have a clear understanding of the difference between something being objective and subjective. The definition of objective is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." This is something that is fact, something that has always and will always be so, no matter the culture or time period, no matter if humans walk the Earth or go extinct. An example of this is 2+2=4. No matter where in the world you go, or how far back you go in time, if you have two things and you add two more, you will have four. This is objectivity. Always true. And that truth is free from personal opinions on the matter. 

Now, the definition of subjective is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." Now ask yourself this: where do our morals come from? They come from us as humans. We decide them based on our personal feelings. At the present time in our society, we feel murder to be wrong not because it is objectively so, but because we reason that it harms others, and we feel that to be bad. And if you go back in time, other cultures found killing others to be permissible and moral. Other cultures found rape and child abuse moral as well. But if these things are to be "objectively" moral, then they have to be moral all the time, for everyone, no matter the culture or time period or circumstance. But they are not. Morality is not the same as 2+2=4. Because morality is entirely dependent on situation and time period, and not on objective fact. A man-made concept can never be objective. The best we can hope to reach is universal subjective morality.

[Mudhammam]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion, but here goes...

I've been looking at arguments for and against the existence of a "supreme being", and I'm focused on the moral argument at the moment. There are numerous versions, but a simple wording of it looks like this:

1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then God does not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The logic of the argument is solid, so any disagreement must involve the definitions of the terms, one or more of the two premises themselves (of course), or both.

So, what do you think about this argument, and how would you go about dismantling it?

Thanks.

What is the relationship between objective moral values and God, and why does the existence of one require the other?

[Brian37]

Nobody I would consider sane would allow harm to their kid if they had the power to stop it.

[athrock]

Next, which of these would you say is or was acceptable EVER:

1. child abuse
   
2. terrorism
   
3. racial discrimination
   
4. rape
   
5. murder (not merely "killing")
   

If one or more of these was or is ever to be accepted or condoned, please provide some explanation of the conditions under which it/they would be or were acceptable.

(my numbers)

1. How were children treated before child labor laws. And what of other countries that do not have child labor laws?
   
2. Terrorism was acceptable to the union when they were fighting England.
   
3. The bible condones racial discrimination and then there is slavery at which time Blacks were not even considered human.
   
4. The bible condones rape
   
5. War is murder
   

You didn't really answer the question because you wanted to avoid admitting that one or more of these things was an example of an Objective Moral Value.

Can't have that, now can we?

Besides, I never asked you whether the BIBLE condones racial discrimination or rape. I asked if YOU condone them.

So, stop dodging and answer the question.

(not merely "killing")

See, rationalizing already.  If we change the meaning then it is all ok.  That is how it works.

The meaning is not being changed...it's being manipulated by you.

Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

But not all killing is unlawful.

Therefore, not all killing is murder.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you think that you can assign objective moral value by getting people to agree with you on something?  As in, if you and I agree that murder is wrong, that means murder is objectively wrong.  Is that what it means to be objectively wrong or right...everyone agrees or disagrees?  That would be silly.

You're fishing for agreed upon moral values..and you're fishing in the same pool you're swimming in...so you shouldn't be surprised if you find them.  What do current social mores have to do with objective moral values?

[athrock]

Next, which of these would you say is or was acceptable EVER:

• child abuse
  
• terrorism
  
• racial discrimination
  
• rape
  
• murder (not merely "killing")
  

If one or more of these was or is ever to be accepted or condoned, please provide some explanation of the conditions under which it/they would be or were acceptable.

Child Abuse: Deuteronomy 21: 18-21, Proverbs 30:17, Psalm 137:9
Rape: Numbers 31:15-18
Terrorism: Deuteronomy 2:25
Genocide (murder): Deuteronomy 2:34
Discrimination: Leviticus 21:17-23

There are more. Sounds like they were acceptable and condoned.

Are we discussing what Christers believe? Or are we trying to determine whether a supreme being of any flavor actually exists?

In quoting these verses, are you suggesting that they provide justification for these things in YOUR opinion?

If the Bible is NOT your guide, then please tell me whether any of the actions listed above are right or wrong regardless of who, when or where they occur.

[The Grand Nudger]

You obviously just want to drive over your own idiocy here.  Too bad.  I think that 1-5 are wrong.  I hope that you do to.  After having agreed to that...we'll have 5 items that we both consider wrong but not a single demonstrably objective moral value.

You could list 500 -more-, upon which we both agree...and we'll still be left standing without any of those objective moral values. The conversation still won't have risen above the level of current social mores....and what it has to do with a god is anyone's guess.

[athrock]

And just to be clear, if the Nazis had won the war, killing six million Jews and a couple million other folks would be okay in your view because might makes right? Correct?

This explains Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other atheist regimes, does it not?

I like how you're trying to paint me the villain in this situation - "would be okay in your view ", "other atheist regimes".

You're not the villain. I'm just trying to coax a clear answer to a simple question out of you: Do objective moral values exist?

I do not support or endorse genocide. I find it terrible and disgusting. 

Great. Always and everywhere? So, would you agree that genocide is an example of something that is objective wrong regardless of circumstances? If so, can we then agree that at least one OMV does exist?

However, the men who served under Hitler thought it was okay. They thought it was justified and moral. And funnily enough, they had the words "God with us" written on their belts, so please don't try to turn this into some atheist-bashing shit as you are hinting at doing, especially considering that Stalin and Mao acted the way they did out of desire for political and financial power, and not because of their religious views. 

Stalin and Mao did act out of desire for power, but the means to their ends was served by their belief that human life has no value. Consequently, what difference does it make if you slaughter a few million of your own citizens to achieve your personal goals?

Anyway, back to the point. To the Nazis, killing Jews was an act of morality. So for them, in that place, at that time, it became moral. Because humans make what is moral moral themselves. I am not talking about what I feel about the situation. I am not talking about what other countries felt about it. I am referring only to the Nazis. They killed innocent people, and they called it moral, so it was moral.

No, it was wrong. Always and everywhere. They called it moral. They thought they were acting morally. But they were wrong.

Objective moral values are real whether anyone believes them or acts according to them or not. They are not established by majority rule.

But let's try substituting another example into what you wrote above to illustrate the absurdity of this; here's my version of your argument:

To the Catholic priests who rape young boys, raping boys was an act of morality. So for them, in that place, at that time, it became moral. Because humans make what is moral moral themselves. I am not talking about what I feel about the situation. I am not talking about what other countries felt about it. I am referring only to the Catholic priests. They raped innocent boys, and they called it moral, so it was moral.

Really?

And in the very very very unlikely event that the Nazis had won the war and conquered the entire civilized world, and in the event that they continued to execute Jews and other minorities and in the very unlikely event that they recruited people from America and England to kill them in their own respective countries, and in the event that those individuals had a way of justifying that to be moral, then it becomes moral. Not because I agree with it. Not because you agree with it. But because morality is defined as the principles that we as humans create concerning distinction between right and wrong. So if a group says, "yes, this is moral" then that is the morality they have created. Does the thought that morality is flexible rather than fixed disturb you? Sorry. But it's the truth. 

Right, and if they continued to conduct all sorts of experiments on the homosexuals, gypsies, jews and others that they deemed sub-human, all kinds of wonderful discoveries might be made that benefit the flourishing of the Aryans.

And by culling out all of these undesirables, there would be fewer mouths to feed making more food and other resources available to those who were genetically acceptable. More flourishing of those who are deemed acceptable.

Human breeding programs could be established - or at the very least laws passed - to govern the propagation of the species for all sorts of obvious reasons.

And because some people have decided that all of this is moral, it really doesn't matter that the minority would suffer. The net overall result would be the advancement of humankind as a result of this more enlightened thinking.

Margaret Sanger would be so proud.

Let me explain this more to you. Slavery in America. 200 Years ago, an American might have thought the institution completely moral, and justified it to himself by saying that blacks are property and not people. But now, from your perspective of 200 years in the future, you consider slavery to be immoral. And because there is not a rule created by the universe saying "slavery is immoral" or "slavery is moral", then there is no objective way of saying it is right or wrong. Back then it was moral. Now it is not. Because morality is relative. Take a small child from its mother and transport it back to the early 1800s. Let it be raised by a wealthy plantation family in the south. What will happen to that child? Most likely it will grow up a slaveowner, and feel no guilt for it. But how, when the child had been born in the 21st century, where slavery is immoral? It is because morality depends on circumstances, on culture, and on what society itself thinks, not on what is objective fact.

So, slavery was moral in the South, but immoral in the North simultaneously? If you lived in Maryland, slavery was okay, but taking a single step over the state line into Pennsylvania would suddenly make it immoral (and not merely illegal)? If it was illegal, WHY? Because the people of Pennsylvania were simply of a different opinion?

This is an example of what happens when people treat moral values subjectively rather than objectively.

Another example. Suppose there was some apocalyptic event like a zombie apocalypse. And suppose we all went into hiding. Now, imagine there's this group of young men who get stuck in a house or fort or whatever together. It's safe there. They can't leave. Imagine they're there for a solid couple months. And imagine this young girl shows up, looking for shelter. And these guys, having not been able to indulge their sexual urges and having been exposed to only males for an extended period of time, find it completely moral to have nonconsensual sex with this girl. She is 16. So right there you got rape and child abuse. But think. To THEM, it is moral, given their circumstances. They see it as "gotta do what you gotta do", and thus it becomes moral. Not objectively moral, mind you, but subjectively moral to them. All morals we have in civilized society (i.e. don't rape, don't steal, don't kill) are dependent on culture and circumstances. But if something falls out of balance, if we don't have enough resources or there's overpopulation or an apocalypse scenario, those morals will change, loosen, and allow people room to do things they might not have previously done. And so morality changes. Because it is subjective. 

Suppose you were in the fort with them. Would YOU try to stop these guys from raping this girl? Would you feel bad for her being gang-raped? Or would you get in line to have a go yourself? Because in THAT situation, it would not be immoral to rape her?

I don't think you have a clear understanding of the difference between something being objective and subjective. The definition of objective is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." This is something that is fact, something that has always and will always be so, no matter the culture or time period, no matter if humans walk the Earth or go extinct. An example of this is 2+2=4. No matter where in the world you go, or how far back you go in time, if you have two things and you add two more, you will have four. This is objectivity. Always true. And that truth is free from personal opinions on the matter. 

Now, the definition of subjective is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." Now ask yourself this: where do our morals come from? They come from us as humans. We decide them based on our personal feelings. At the present time in our society, we feel murder to be wrong not because it is objectively so, but because we reason that it harms others, and we feel that to be bad. And if you go back in time, other cultures found killing others to be permissible and moral. Other cultures found rape and child abuse moral as well. But if these things are to be "objectively" moral, then they have to be moral all the time, for everyone, no matter the culture or time period or circumstance. But they are not. Morality is not the same as 2+2=4. Because morality is entirely dependent on situation and time period, and not on objective fact. A man-made concept can never be objective. The best we can hope to reach is universal subjective morality.

You were doing well right up until the last few sentences, but I appreciate the thought you put into your explanation. It's a pleasure to interact with you!

---

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion, but here goes...

I've been looking at arguments for and against the existence of a "supreme being", and I'm focused on the moral argument at the moment. There are numerous versions, but a simple wording of it looks like this:

1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then God does not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The logic of the argument is solid, so any disagreement must involve the definitions of the terms, one or more of the two premises themselves (of course), or both.

So, what do you think about this argument, and how would you go about dismantling it?

Thanks.

What is the relationship between objective moral values and God, and why does the existence of one require the other?

That is the million-dollar question, isn't it? I posted this earlier, but the thread has grown, so you may have missed it:


Here's an analogy: the measure of a portrait painted by an artist is how closely the completed work resembles the person portrayed. If it is does capture the appearance well, we say that the portrait is a "good" likeness. Otherwise, we question the skill of the artist (impressionists and Picasso notwithstanding). But the measure of the portrait is the actual person being painted. Now, imagine a room full of art students all painting the same model who is posed in the center of the studio. The students may capture the model's features with varying degrees of accuracy and skill, and we would judge that painting to be the best which most closely resembles the model in real life.

Similarly, it seems to me that when we measure whether an act is good or evil, we do so against an absolute standard of right and wrong that does not depend upon cultural differences or personal preferences. And we make our judgments regarding good and evil, right and wrong, against an absolute standard.

I'm oversimplifying when I say that which is the highest good is what theists call "God". (And Plato "the Good"?)

If God does not exist, then what is the basis or reference point for objective moral values and duties? Or do they even exist?

[The Grand Nudger]

Using your own analogy, the basis can be a guy sitting in the room, surrounded by artists painting his portrait.  The portrait of a good man, as it were.  He doesn't need to be a god, and the moral values produced do not need to be objective.

None of us, absolutely none of us...base our moral values on a god.  Ironically, even the hardest core believers base their moral values on a work of art.....produced by human beings.  So, obviously, it doesn't take anything other than the painters in the room, or a guy sitting on a chair being painted, to produce moral values..regardless of whether they are subjective or objective....and regardless of whether or not a god exists.  You're presenting a complete non-issue, and it's still just a matter of agreed upon standards of beauty, as in your analogy.  

/Next.

[athrock]

Do you think that you can assign objective moral value by getting people to agree with you on something?  As in, if you and I agree that murder is wrong, that means murder is objectively wrong.  Is that what it means to be objectively wrong or right...everyone agrees or disagrees?  That would be silly.

You're fishing for agreed upon moral values..and you're fishing in the same pool you're swimming in...so you shouldn't be surprised if you find them.  What do current social mores have to do with objective moral values?

"Any argument for moral skepticism is going to be based on premises which are less obvious than the reality of objective moral values themselves." (Louise Antony, Atheist Philosopher)

IOW, denying the existence of objective moral values, or moral skepticism, flies in the face of what we know from our own lived moral experience.