My views on objective morality

[Catholic_Lady]

I'd say a dictator is merely another human being, no different from yourself as a human being. He didn't create the universe. He isn't the ultimate supreme being of everything that exists. He didn't, Himself, create moral laws and design how they work and what they are.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that because God created the moral laws, whatever he decrees is true by definition. Is that it? But if so, do you believe that if God had said that torturing babies for fun is good, it would be good?

He is God, so killing babies would be whatever He made it be. But in the world we live in, and the God I know/believe in defines goodness as loving your neighbor as yourself, treating others the way you want to be treated, feeding the hungry, giving drink the to thirsty, clothing the naked, etc... things like that. That is what He has established to be goodness. If killing babies was good, then the word "good" would literally have an entirely different meaning, considering it directly contradicts the very way good has been defined by God. Also, God (the one I believe to be real) is love. If He wanted us to torture babies, He would be a completely different entity than the God I would have thought existed.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you feel that god created morality, and it could have been whatever god defined it as, you believe in a subjective and arbitrary morality.  It doesn't become objective just because "god done did it", you realize? That's not what that word means. To be honest, I'm not sure you're even discussing morality at this point, rather, acquiescence to your gods whims - whatever they may be. That it sometimes aligns with what I would call morality can only be accidental.

As to the meaning of the word good...that wouldn;t change if killing babies was included. Killing babies would simply be included. The god you worship would be the same god (and in truth is a baby killing god), he would have simply given you a different list of things that belong in the category of good..which doesn't change the -way- he defined it, at all...that -is- how good is defined, by god, according to you, above......."cuz god said so". Any elaboration beyond that ridiculous statement would be uninformative with regards to morality. There's nothing good or bad about killing babies except that god said something, one way or another. Repeat this for every moral statement.

Seems pointless to me, I'm gonna go ahead and keep reaching moral positions by careful and rational consideration. I have no need of a god to tell me what is right or wrong and clearly, god isn't commenting on what is right or wrong in the first place. Just his list of do's and don'ts.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

He is God, so killing babies would be whatever He made it be. But in the world we live in, and the God I know/believe in defines goodness as loving your neighbor as yourself, treating others the way you want to be treated, feeding the hungry, giving drink the to thirsty, clothing the naked, etc... things like that. That is what He has established to be goodness. If killing babies was good, then the word "good" would literally have an entirely different meaning, considering it directly contradicts the very way good has been defined by God. Also, God (the one I believe to be real) is love. If He wanted us to torture babies, He would be a completely different entity than the God I would have thought existed.

So if God made killing babies good, then you would not want to be good?

Also, what if "the naked" don't want to be clothed? :-D

[Kiekeben]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that because God created the moral laws, whatever he decrees is true by definition. Is that it? But if so, do you believe that if God had said that torturing babies for fun is good, it would be good?

He is God, so killing babies would be whatever He made it be. But in the world we live in, and the God I know/believe in defines goodness as loving your neighbor as yourself, treating others the way you want to be treated, feeding the hungry, giving drink the to thirsty, clothing the naked, etc... things like that. That is what He has established to be goodness. If killing babies was good, then the word "good" would literally have an entirely different meaning, considering it directly contradicts the very way good has been defined by God. Also, God (the one I believe to be real) is love. If He wanted us to torture babies, He would be a completely different entity than the God I would have thought existed.

Okay, I think we're actually getting somewhere here (which is more than I can say for most online discussions), so I hope you bear with me - especially since this is going to be a bit long. What you're defending is known as the Divine Command Theory, and you may not realize this, but plenty of Christians have rejected this theory (in fact, the Catholic Church officially accepts natural law theory, which strictly speaking is incompatible with DCT). 

To begin with, it's important to realize that discussing what makes something morally good is not the same thing as discussing what the four letters g, o, o, d, in that order, happen to mean in our language. I say this because you stated that if God said torturing babies was good, "good" would mean something else.  I'm not concerned with how else the word might be have been used - I'm talking about the concept of goodness. IOW, if you say that what we should do is by definition whatever God says we should do, then in a world where God says "thou shalt torture babies", we should torture babies. It would be good, on this understanding of what makes something good, to torture babies - and "good" would mean the same thing - that is, it would denote that which we should do.

Now, the question I'm asking is, do you accept that torturing babies (keeping in mind that it would still cause pain and suffering) would be good in such a world? From what you've said so far, it seems your answer is (fortunately) no! 

But now, the reason you're claiming that it would not be good, it seems, is that you're saying God is a loving being who would never want to see babies tortured. But (and this is the part people often fail to understand) if that's the case, then what you are claiming is that God is good because he is a loving being. If God were different and wanted us to torture babies, then he would not be good! But do you see what you're really saying here? Good is no longer whatever God says just because he's God and what he says goes - good is what a loving being believes is good. It is only because God has a good nature that his commands are good. And this is incompatible with the DCT - and with your initial claim. Good is limited to what a loving being regards as good - it cannot be just anything that God (whether he is loving or not) might want.

And here's the clincher: if what you really mean by "good" is what a loving being would agree is good, then I as an atheist do not need to believe there is a God in order to agree with your understanding of it. Good, in this case, depends on what is loving, what is caring and considerate of others, and so on, and thus does not depend on the existence of a being to make a declaration that this or that is good. To put it another way, good is what a loving being would want irrespective of whether this loving being exists. The right thing to do is necessarily limited by the sort of action it is - by whether or not it causes suffering, for example - and an atheist can see that without having to believe that there is a creator who informed human beings about morality.

I hope that makes it clear why the DCT is just wrong, but I'll happily discuss this further (if you're not already really tired of this by now!). And BTW, I wrote a bit more about all this in Ch. 5 of my book The Truth about God (by Franz Kiekeben), in case you're interested.

[robvalue]

I've asked that question before here, like "God shows up and tells you to kill your family. Do you do it?"

Most theists refuse to answer, and dodge around the mulberry bush. Some admirably said they would not do so, and some scarily said that they would. (The implications for the second group hallucinating is bone chilling to me.)

As disgusting as I find the second group, they are at least being consistent. If god's goodness requires individual approval, then it's not objective at all. Clearly the standard is already in place, and god's word is taken only if it lines up with that standard. In other words, god's commandments are irrelevant. The person has already made up their mind, and they do what god says as long as they were going to do it anyway.

Of course, I'd much rather live in a world with (what I consider to be) confused theists with contradictory beliefs, than devout theists who would actually kill their own family based on voices in their head.

[Catholic_Lady]

He is God, so killing babies would be whatever He made it be. But in the world we live in, and the God I know/believe in defines goodness as loving your neighbor as yourself, treating others the way you want to be treated, feeding the hungry, giving drink the to thirsty, clothing the naked, etc... things like that. That is what He has established to be goodness. If killing babies was good, then the word "good" would literally have an entirely different meaning, considering it directly contradicts the very way good has been defined by God. Also, God (the one I believe to be real) is love. If He wanted us to torture babies, He would be a completely different entity than the God I would have thought existed.

So if God made killing babies good, then you would not want to be good?

Also, what if "the naked" don't want to be clothed? :-D

The thing is, we have an inherent understanding of good and evil. Generally speaking, people know that torturing/killing babies is not good. I believe God gave us that understanding. So a world where God has established that goodness is killing babies/etc, would be a very different world. It wouldn't be the world we live in, and we wouldn't be the people that we are.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

So if God made killing babies good, then you would not want to be good?

Also, what if "the naked" don't want to be clothed? :-D

The thing is, we have an inherent understanding of good and evil. Generally speaking, people know that torturing/killing babies is not good. I believe God gave us that understanding. So a world where God has established that goodness is killing babies/etc, would be a very different world. It wouldn't be the world we live in, and we wouldn't be the people that we are.

Are you not aware of the fact that other animals, who do not worship god, have those same values? They don't torture, and they sure don't kill their own offspring because this would be anathema to their most important, and genetically pre-programmed purpose (known otherwise as "instinct", which is to produce viable offspring. When they kill the offspring of others, it is for the purpose of ensuring their own survival through new offspring, which works for them if they are of a non-sociable species. We are a sociable species, therefore we don't kill babies. There simply is no evidence that any god had anything to do with making the killing of human babies by other humans not good.

Also, you didn't answer my question on "the naked", when they don't want to be clothed. This may be a serious question with the many tribal peoples who were found living, to the disgust of Xtian missionaries, in the nude. They didn't like it when the missionaries make them put on clothing, but they did this in exchange for the better medicine which they brought with them.

[Catholic_Lady]

What? Animals kill their babies all the time. Lions especially, come to mind.

[Catholic_Lady]

If they don't want to be clothed, then that's fine. It's about helping people in need, not making them do something they don't wanna do.

[bennyboy]

He is God, so killing babies would be whatever He made it be. But in the world we live in, and the God I know/believe in defines goodness as loving your neighbor as yourself, treating others the way you want to be treated, feeding the hungry, giving drink the to thirsty, clothing the naked, etc... things like that. That is what He has established to be goodness. If killing babies was good, then the word "good" would literally have an entirely different meaning

Do you read what you type?

Is it not a fact that some babies die which do not die by the fault of any living person? This either means that God is not good, God is not powerful enough to save babies, or God does not in fact share your definition of goodness. Are you going to tell us that little dead babies are going to live out eternity as angels? If so, with what personality? What will replace the egoes which they never had the chance to develop?

Clothing the naked? The Bible specifically tells Jesus followers not to worry about clothes, because they will be clothed by God. So look at the freezing poor. Where are the clothes that God promised?

I don't care much that you don't believe in the Bible. But if you think God is both powerful and good, then there is a world full of evidence which contradicts you. Or, to be blunt, you are more interested in maintaining your happy beliefs than in embracing reality. Nothing but your imagination supports your Pollyanna world view.