My views on objective morality

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Bring it back to the original issue. Does morality and God go together such that both prove one another? (double implications of one another?)

No.

[Mystic]

Nope.

Are things good because god says so? If they are, it's arbitrary. "Good" and "evil" mean nothing outside of his proclamations.

Are things God says are good actually good in of themselves? If so, God is irrelevant.

Theists endlessly try and equivocate the two.

This is a false dichotomy though. I've explained many times the other option but it seems every time I do, you said you don't understand a word I'm saying about this issue so I won't this time.

[bennyboy]

It's not a cop out at all. I can't judge the heart and soul of another person because I can't see those things. 

I'm not trying to produce evidence. Just answering your questions about what my views are.

If you cannot answer moral questions, then you are not engaged in the philosophy of morality. Here's how this thread, in that case, should go:

You: I believe in God, and I think there's an objective morality-- I can't explain it, or give examples, or support it with evidence. But I believe it.

Everyone else: Thanks for sharing. Next time, please post in the "religion" section.

[bennyboy]

So why the heck to you hold the beliefs that you do?  There's no reason for it that I can see except that you are a member of a Catholic culture.

Of course there's "no reason that you can see." You don't know me and have barely even interacted with me on an online forum.

The OP is one (smaller) reason why I believe. There are others. The main reason that sealed the deal, if you will, is a supernatural experience I had.

I'm not trying to divine your mysterious deep-down, personal nature.  I'm trying to understand why you would hold a belief system that, at least in my view, any rational person would find incoherent.  I have a hypothesis: that it's a combination of your feelings and your culture-- i.e. that it has little to do with any deep understanding of Catholic doctrine, or any interest in the philosophy of morality.

Why don't you tell us about this supernatural experience you had.  I've also had what I would call "spiritual" experiences, and was very much on the receiving end of incredulity and mockery.  But for me, that's just semantics, and says little about the value of the experiences themselves.  So I'm not as hostile as you think I am when it comes to feelings.  I just want to know what you've done to verify your feelings rationally.

[bennyboy]

Show me a criminal that doesn't have something bad in his past, his DNA, or his brain chemistry that mediates his behavior.  Even where one plans an evil act for months, why is it that some people do this, and others do not?  It is because their natures, which they did not originate, and whose environmental influences they did not dictate, led them to be that kind of person.

Science can now show that things like brain development affect mood and behavior.  So people who commit acts you consider "evil" are actually dysfunctional: they have an inability to feel properly, to control behaviors properly, to understand consequences properly, etc.  And their reward for having to suffer through a life of dysfunction?  God (who either caused or at least allowed the dysfunction) either turns his back on them, or causes them to suffer for all eternity.

If culpability can be lessened for a predisposition to do evil, than all evil-doers must go to Heaven, since none of them are responsible for their predispositions.

In my opinion, God should go to Hell, because he's the only sentient entity that we might argue cannot be intrinsically dyfunctional, and who can therefore be considered fully culpable for the many evils he either commits or allows to be committed.

I said it can be lessened. I didn't say it was entirely mitigated, all the time, for every case. Every case is different. Furthermore, a predisposition to do bad things doesn't mean a person will do bad things. There are many people who were abused and neglected as children and never grow up to rape and kill others. It's not automatic, and people still have a choice. What happened to the likes of Hitler, Stalin, etc after they die is still a mystery to us though, as it's not our place to judge who's in Hell.

Who says it can be lessened?  God?  Did God tell you this?  Did Catholic leaders tell you this?  What happened to your "objective morality" (remember the OP?) in which things are either right or wrong, just because they are and not because of context or circumstance?

As for the many people who were abused but didn't grow up to rape and kill others-- this argument was expected, but it is weak.  WHAT, exactly, differentiates those who do flip out and those who don't?  Is it brain function?  The degree of trauma with which they remember the rape?  Was it a spiritual condition?

EVEN IF it is the spiritual quality of a person which causes them to fail the test and commit evil where others do not, what person chose his own spiritual quality?  The prime causal event which led to that person being in a state in which he commited evil was not in that person's control-- it was in God's control. So the person hasn't really failed God's test; God has failed the person, in not giving him the same spiritual qualities that you or others were fortunate enough to be born with.

I'm expecting you to answer, "I don't know," and leave the actual rationale to God.  But if you don't know anything about morality and the consequences of moral and immoral decisions, I wouldn't say your position is a very useful one.  Your instincts to do good are much more useful than your ideas.

[bennyboy]

Bring it back to the original issue. Does morality and God go together such that both prove one another? (double implications of one another?)

MK, I believe the expression you are looking for is "circular logic."  And yes, this does seem to be a case of circular logic.

[pocaracas]

Does morality and God go together such that both prove one another? (double implications of one another?)

Perhaps it would be better to define "morality", so that we can work from there, huh?

To me, morality is just a collection of behaviors that humans have with each other so that the overall society can prosper and minimize suffering - be it physical or psychological. It also includes behaviors which, if undertaken, would lead to the opposite - a society that does not prosper nor minimizes suffering - and as such are to be avoided.

Given such a human-centric nature of morality, I cannot fathom it having any relation to a god.

[Mr.wizard]

How do you recognize objective morality?

[Mystic]

Bring it back to the original issue. Does morality and God go together such that both prove one another? (double implications of one another?)

MK, I believe the expression you are looking for is "circular logic."  And yes, this does seem to be a case of circular logic.

Double implications exist.

A -> B
B -> A
Therefore A <->B. 

It's not circular reasoning. It's that both imply one another.

If there existed a child, there existed a parent.
If there existed a parent, there existed a child.

That's a double implication in the definition of child and parent.

The same can be true of morality because of it's relationship to God as the source.

[Mystic]

Does morality and God go together such that both prove one another? (double implications of one another?)

Perhaps it would be better to define "morality", so that we can work from there, huh?

To me, morality is just a collection of behaviors that humans have with each other so that the overall society can prosper and minimize suffering - be it physical or psychological. It also includes behaviors which, if undertaken, would lead to the opposite - a society that does not prosper nor minimizes suffering - and as such are to be avoided.

Given such a human-centric nature of morality, I cannot fathom it having any relation to a god.

I've been wanting to reply to this issue in the other thread. Glad you brought it up here again.