Morality versus afterlife

[Reforged]

Before I decided there was no God, that the afterlife wasn't real. Before I even considered that I came to the conclusion that considering what God allowed he couldn't be particularly moral. That I wasn't sure I wanted to follow him considering all the suffering his creation had set in motion. That of course; is thought crime. So I snuffed that out as much as possible and focused on renewing my faith. I was seven or eight.
I spent... probably three to four of my younger years thinking I was probably going to hell because of that. I can't say it was a particularly healthy or uplifting thing to think but you get used to the idea.

[RoadRunner79]

Roadrunner: If you want the term "objective morality" to mean anything, you need to define exactly what it is. And to help me understand, please give me an example of how it works in practice where there is some sort of conflict of interest between two competing outcomes. No one has been able to rise to this simple challenge yet. All I get are trivial situations, killing someone versus not killing them. There is no conflict there. A conflict is where you have to balance one outcome against another due to a choice that must be made, or a limited amount of resources.

In referring to objective here, what I mean is that morality derives it's qualities and is defined, outside of the subject.  That it is absolute, and what is true for one person, is also true for another.   This would be contrary to a relative basis, in which the attributes of morality are opinions, equally valid, even if contrary between people. This can also be further expounded into moral realism.  That something immoral really is wrong, and against ones personal preference.

I also think that you want to rephrase your above.  It looks as if you are saying that killing someone is trivial, and I don't think that is what you meant (although you may mean that if you truly are a moral relativist).  As an example, I would say that throwing babies into a wood chipper for the fun of it, is always, wrong (an absolute).  It cannot be made moral based on the subject, culture, or time.  It is wrong, regardless of the subject or circumstances.
 

I have no idea what "inane morality" is supposed to mean.

Thanks, I did mean "innate sense of morality"

Yes, most people have empathy because it's an efficient evolutionary trait in our species. So hurting others in some way feels like hurting ourselves. Morality is a judgement, things aren't just "moral" or "immoral", it requires someone to make the distinction; see above. So no, things don't become inherently moral or immoral under any circumstances, including me not having empathy, because it's a nonsensical concept.

Are you saying, that immorality is just a lack of empathy?   If so, then you are saying that it is not subjective (assuming that your definition of empathy is not subjective). Can one be moral and not have empathy for the other person?  It also seems, that one may be saddened by their actions, and still behave immorally (have empathy and behave immorally.   While there is some relation to empathy and morality and they may cross, I don't see where you are making this connection.  Please expound on this.

[robvalue]

Roadrunner: OK, so you're talking about morality objective from the point of view of humans, not universally objective. But what is morality? How do you define it?

Indeed, I didn't mean killing someone is trivial. I meant it is trivial to say that given the choice of killing someone or not, the answer is to not kill them. There are no conflicting factors. That's why I would like examples where a more complex decision must be made, a "lesser of two evils" situation. But then, it depends what you mean by morality. If your definition is just "what God wants", then weighing up outcomes from our perspective is irrelevant anyway.

Regarding empathy, no I'm not saying empathy is morality. I'm saying it's a good scientific explanation for why we care about each other, and I call these attempts to tailor our actions in this respect morality. Without empathy, it becomes more complex. Someone without it may have very different ideas about what is a "good" and "bad" thing to do. They don't have the innate sense that you speak of.

But yes, morality is ultimately a matter of opinion. We just happen to agree, as humans, on quite a lot of it because most of us do have empathy. But we don't agree on every detail. I define it as a value judgement, and the judgement requires a judge. It doesn't even have to be a human, many animals have a sense of "fairness". If you're going to say the judge is God, then you need to explain why I should care about God's opinion and how this has anything to do with the wellbeing of life on Earth. If it doesn't have anything to do with wellbeing, then I would personally find it totally irrelevant. Just because something is objective (or in this case, external), doesn't mean it is of any use.

[Edwardo Piet]

"Jerk off" and "too much" don't go together.

#turtleywankererthathazmayo

A fact for which ktrap's mother is eternally glad. She doesn't have to pay money for the other mayo to put in his sandwiches.

Yee-ay!

[Drich]

This is a question for anyone who thinks morality "comes from God".

If you knew there was no afterlife, that you're dead and gone no matter what happens in this life, would you continue to follow "morality from God"? Or would you then ignore it, and decide for yourself how to act?

Thanks

God's Law is Righteousness, Man's 'want to do' version of God's Righteousness is 'morality.'

Keeping in mind that man's 'morality' changes from culture to culture and from generation to generation. does not make what pop culture defines as 'morality' moral or right for a lack of a better term. it is simply 'right' for those in the majority..

That said without an absolute like God's standard of righteousness what keep society grounded in any sense of right and wrong? for instance what keeps a more advanced society from pushing a more primitive culture off it's lands and drives those people off the edge of extinction? Kinda like what America did with it's Indians? Or what Germany did with it's Jews? or what the world does with unborn babies it does not want.. Without some form of God's Righteousness pushing us to act in all instances, their wouldn't be Indians in America any more, Jews in Europe, or any restrictions on abortion.

So given the two choices of living under evil incarnate/man's morality and God's righteousness I choose God's righteousness and system of redemption, eternal life or not.

[robvalue]

More thoughts for Roadrunner:

You seem to be presenting a pretty common argument, that if morality is subjective, no one can ultimately be "right". You find this situation unacceptable. But your feelings about the situation, don't alter the facts.

I made a short video about this very subject a while ago, so I'll put it here again instead of repeating myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LN-oKZIUeY

[orangebox21]

If you're going to say the judge is God, then you need to explain why I should care about God's opinion and how this has anything to do with the wellbeing of life on Earth.

I've included two quotes but you should reread post #78.  This contention has been addressed but you have not responded to it.

I hear this a lot.  What do you mean by arbitrary?  Are you claiming that when God gave His commandments He did so on a whim and without reason?  Are you claiming that He didn't have a reason for telling a person to not murder another person, and that there is not any beneficial effect to obeying a command like that?

Would the world be better if there was no murder?  Yes.  Would the world be better if people were content with what they had and didn't covet?  Yes.  Would the world be better if no one was a false witness?  Yes.

 

If it doesn't have anything to do with wellbeing,

Can you honestly claim that you know what the Bible teaches, namely the ten commandments, and that there is no possibility that any of those laws have an effect on wellbeing?

then I would personally find it totally irrelevant.

Again, is personal incredulity reasonable?

You seem to be presenting a pretty common argument, that if morality is subjective, no one can ultimately be "right". You find this situation unacceptable. But your feelings about the situation, don't alter the facts.

No one is making the argument that if morality is subjective then no one can ultimately be right because this situation is unacceptable [against my feelings].  It's being claimed that the necessary logical conclusion of a subjective morality is illogical and inconsistent with reality.  It is illogical in that it uses personal opinion as the reasoning to determine the moral truth value of an action.  It is inconsistent with reality in that autonomy does not allow for the imposition of a moral system (a judicial system) from one person to another (see post #56 for more reading).  

I made a short video about this very subject a while ago, so I'll put it here again instead of repeating myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LN-oKZIUeY

At 2:00 you say:  "the fact that you don't like it not being the case is not an argument."  I agree with you.  An argument from personal incredulity is not reasonable.  Yet, and you have admitted, this [personal opinion] is the very foundation by which you determine morality.

At 2:10 you say:  "if God doesn't exist then everyone makes up their own morality.... yeah that's exactly what happens."  Whether the argument has been properly explained to you or not I can't say [there are plenty of bad arguments on both sides], the claim is that if God didn't exist then there would be no basis for morality.  In other words, there wouldn't be a coherent ontology of morality neither would there be a way to make valid moral truth claims.

At 2:47 you say:  "your feelings about things is not a part of a sensible discussion."  Are you talking solely about emotions here?  It's hard to tell from your video how you're defining 'feelings.'  Are you including 'opinions' in the definition?  And I'm sure you can see where we would go from there.

[Brian37]

This is a question for anyone who thinks morality "comes from God".

If you knew there was no afterlife, that you're dead and gone no matter what happens in this life, would you continue to follow "morality from God"? Or would you then ignore it, and decide for yourself how to act?

Thanks

God's Law is Righteousness, Man's 'want to do' version of God's Righteousness is 'morality.'

Keeping in mind that man's 'morality' changes from culture to culture and from generation to generation. does not make what pop culture defines as 'morality' moral or right for a lack of a better term. it is simply 'right' for those in the majority..

That said without an absolute like God's standard of righteousness what keep society grounded in any sense of right and wrong? for instance what keeps a more advanced society from pushing a more primitive culture off it's lands and drives those people off the edge of extinction? Kinda like what America did with it's Indians? Or what Germany did with it's Jews? or what the world does with unborn babies it does not want.. Without some form of God's Righteousness pushing us to act in all instances, their wouldn't be Indians in America any more, Jews in Europe, or any restrictions on abortion.

So given the two choices of living under evil incarnate/man's morality and God's righteousness I choose God's righteousness and system of redemption, eternal life or not.

"Righteousness" yea and? Fans of Allah think they are "righteous" too. Sunnis and Shiites also think their god is "righteous"

"God's standard", yea and? Conservative Baptists and Liberal Baptists don't agree on what "God's standards" are.

There wouldn't be any Indians in America? First off, the Natives were here first, and Europeans invaded the continent, stole their land, killed them off, and your argument is they should be thankfull God didn't allow them all to be murdered? Secondly, the word "Indian" was a fucking mistake. It was used because Columbus thought he had reached India. 

Same with the Jews, how the fuck can you sit there and justify the claim of a perfect security guard who watches as 6 million Jews get murdered, and while 50 million civilians and soldiers worldwide on all sides died as a result of WW2. 

God, " Yea Natives, sorry about all the small pox stuff and Andrew Jackson, but buck up, at least I didn't allow my fans to murder you all".

God, "Sorry Jews, I could have prevented the Holocaust and never let it happen at all, but buck up, at least I didn't allow all of you to die".

How warped does your logic have to get to justify such a selective deadbeat of a character? Fucking sick.

[robvalue]

Orange: Sorry, I'm not going to respond to your points as I feel it's going nowhere. Someone else is welcome to thrash it out.

[RoadRunner79]

More thoughts for Roadrunner:

You seem to be presenting a pretty common argument, that if morality is subjective, no one can ultimately be "right". You find this situation unacceptable. But your feelings about the situation, don't alter the facts.

I'd agree, just because you do not like something, does not mean that you can change reality.  

Similarly "God exist" is an objective statement, which is true or false, regardless of your or my own personal feelings.
However that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that there is a real right and wrong, regardless of person, culture, or time. And I think that most people including you likely behave as such.