On Moral Authorities

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Morality can only be objective with God

Please forgive me, but I'm not much of a debater, nor am I the intellectual type.  Could you elaborate on this statement a bit more, sir?

[bennyboy]

Morality can only be objective with God. For, morality is about what is good action and what is bad. Now, to be good or to be bad is according to the fulfillment of the end of a something. For an instance, a good eyesight is an eyesight which can see clearly, for the end of eyes is to see. Now, the end of man is God, for man is created to know the truth and love the good, but God is the Truth and Goodness Himself, for all true and good things come from Him, because He is Being Himself, as proven by the arguments for God's existence. Therefore, without God, there can't be objective morality.

Good and bad imply goals, and the fulfillment of goals.  However, some goals are universal enough to consider objective.  For example, all normally-functioning humans (at least those in good health) wish to survive.  In serving our nature by surviving, we are serving out a goal that is not the arbitrary creation of the conscious self. In creating social contracts and feeling guilty when we violate them, we are acting according to our nature as a highly social species.

That's objective enough for me.

[FallentoReason]

There is no moral authority beyond the individual's conscience.  Churches may seem to be an exception, yet people still pick and choose the maxims they embrace based on their individual conscience.  Sometimes that conscience says to defer one's moral prerogatives to another.  However the power flows from the individual to the putative authority.

Good thing I'm not arguing in favour of established religions.

[FallentoReason]

Morality is simply a subjective evaluation of actions. There can be no "correct" morality, just opinions backed by reasoning. So a moral authority makes no sense. It's just another opinion.

Is it "correct" to tell the truth?

There's also no reason to think that the most powerful being has intentions that any of us would choose to align ourselves with. It's what puzzles me about religion, the insistence that "God" is unquestionably "good".

Agreed. I wouldn't ever argue in favour of religion, just deism at most.

[vorlon13]

Would Darwin have something to say?

thought experiment:

place some groups of people in similar environments, the groups would have varying 'moral codes' instilled and at varying levels of intensity.

Lather

rinse

repeat


come back in 250 years and see how well the different groups fared, and also evaluate how their instilled codes 'evolved' over time.


I'd suggest scoring would be based on how the groups grew and prospered. And see if the codes that 'evolved' did so to be more congruent with each other at similar 'success' ratings.

[FallentoReason]

Well, you certainly don't need to act rationally to act morally,

Because Kant was just flat out wrong.

though I think that what it means for something to be moral in the first place has a rational requirement.

Agreed. 

I'm not sure that you've even approached the essence of why x is wrong, in your examples, but as I said above, it's not as if you have to act or think rationally to reach the correct moral conclusion, lol.

I can elaborate on Kant further if you want me to.

 I'd go with something a little simpler.  Good is what helps, bad is what harms.

Is it bad to kill a terrorist about to bomb a building? 

Is it good to help with an assisted suicide?

Now, what does all of this have to do with authorities? Firstly, someone who is an authority has 

therefore, giving orders etc. must mean the authority must have some sort of goal or intent - a will of some kind.

snipped - quote issue, plus, who cares...you're already reaching for what you want to see out of a dictionary, lol

Stop trolling please. We have to begin with what we mean by "authority" and there's no better place than the english dictionary. Accept it, or get out! 

LOL, no.  Authority neither needs to be a "someone",

Elaborate please.

nor do rules require a will.

They don't require a will, that's right. What Kant tries to establish is a purely rational way of doing things. He talks about hypothetical imperatives, such that e.g. "if you're hungry, then you ought to eat". It's simply a state of affairs where the individual is free to choose what to do. And if they want to satisfy their hunger, then rationally speaking, they ought to eat. From here, he establishes moral absolutes (categorical imperatives) such that they are akin to physical laws. Therefore, all he's saying is that to go "with the flow" will mean you're acting rationally (and thus morally correct). The moral law doesn't actually care about your will though. It's the other way around.

Further...power wouldn't make a -moral- authority unless might made right.  

I didn't say raw power on its own. Just the fact that power can allow you to act rationally on a bigger scale than the individual. It's a means to an end. 

I suppose in this way, authority isn't given, but earned. And earning it would be a result of other people acting rationally, because if you have the resources in order to fulfill their will, then by their rationalization you must become an authority. After all, that is partly why we want certain people to become presidents, right (the irony!!!)?

I'm not much on will fulfillment as the source of morality.

With all due respect, your preferences don't make an argument true or false. Therefore, nothing to see here.

Therefore, by this reasoning, the ultimate authority would have to be a being with the most resources available to it - something akin to a god. Not only would it be an authority since it has limitless resources, but it would also be a moral one since it has the foresight to know precisely if an action is ultimately rational or not.

Well, since you went off the rails in the first step, and reference something that I don;t grant credence to in the next...it;s not surprising that..when you go telling us about what "ultimate" must mean here I neither agree nor care.

Why don't you agree? Explicate please.

I'm not sure why you seem to think something "akin to a god" is the ultimate moral authority.  Even imagining that the moral authority needs a will, to align itself to will fulfillment, and have the most resources available to achieve that....the "ultimate moral authority" could be a guy in Jersey named Joe.

Correct, provided Joe doesn't get one-upped by a god.

Honestly,. I don't think that there was a single mention of a credible morality,

Then you don't understand Kant, and apparently neither do my PhD ethics professors. 

let alone a credible moral authority, in that entire post.

But you correctly identified Joe could be it? You can't correctly give me an answer and not think it to be credible.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because Kant was just flat out wrong.

I wouldn;t know, but I know that what you described has little, if anything, to do with my morality.

I can elaborate on Kant further if you want me to.

No need, really, nothing to do with my morality.

Is it bad to kill a terrorist about to bomb a building? 

Sure is, pewpewpew.  I'll parade his skull up and down the street and -still- be a good person, too.

Is it good to help with an assisted suicide?

Suppose it depends on the motivations of the person asking for help, eh?

Stop trolling please. We have to begin with what we mean by "authority" and there's no better place than the english dictionary. Accept it, or get out! 

Not trolling you at all, I just don;t respect your method....at all.

Elaborate please.

Seems self explanatory.  

They don't require a will, that's right. What Kant tries to establish is a purely rational way of doing things. He talks about hypothetical imperatives, such that e.g. "if you're hungry, then you ought to eat". It's simply a state of affairs where the individual is free to choose what to do. And if they want to satisfy their hunger, then rationally speaking, they ought to eat. From here, he establishes moral absolutes (categorical imperatives) such that they are akin to physical laws. Therefore, all he's saying is that to go "with the flow" will mean you're acting rationally (and thus morally correct). The moral law doesn't actually care about your will though. It's the other way around.

Meh, like I said, kant doesn't describe my morality.

I didn't say raw power on its own. Just the fact that power can allow you to act rationally on a bigger scale than the individual. It's a means to an end. 

-your definition did.....so, yeah, you did.  Unless you arent referring to that definition..which wasn't a definition of a moral authority anyway......

With all due respect, your preferences don't make an argument true or false. Therefore, nothing to see here.

..............?  I'm just telling you that it's not a theory of morality that ineterests me,.,I did, also, sday that I don;t think you even approached or -discussed- morality, but hey, carry on.

Why don't you agree? Explicate please.

Seems like another thing that ought to be pretty clear...but, if you insist.  I think you started with a poor definition, then referenced a formulation of moral values that I do not find compelling,. and topped it off with some ludicrous shit about what it meant to be absolute as though moral absolutes had something to do with available resources.  

Correct, provided Joe doesn't get one-upped by a god.

Which, ofc, he never will, since gods don't exist anywhere but Joe's mind.

Then you don't understand Kant, and apparently neither do my PhD ethics professors. 

It's not an issue of understanding, I just don't think it approaches morality as I apply it in my life. I'm not the sort of hedonist kant had in mind.

But you correctly identified Joe could be it? You can't correctly give me an answer and not think it to be credible.

Clearly, I can. It's not as if I find joe any more or less credible a moral authority as your "aking to a god"-thing.

[theologian]

Good and bad imply goals, and the fulfillment of goals.

That's right.

However, some goals are universal enough to consider objective. For example, all normally-functioning humans (at least those in good health) wish to survive. In serving our nature by surviving, we are serving out a goal that is not the arbitrary creation of the conscious self. In creating social contracts and feeling guilty when we violate them, we are acting according to our nature as a highly social species.

That's objective enough for me.

If morality is about good and bad, and good and bad is about our goal, and if our true goal is God, then if there is no God, there can be no objective morality for man. Every act of following nature viewed as good will be just a simple opinion of a man and it will just be pointless. Why follow nature after all? But, it is true that God is the true goal of man, by being able to know the truth and love the good, and that God is Truth and Goodness Himself, because He is Being Himself, Whom we know to exist as Being Itself in order to explain why is there something instead of nothing, and that Being, True and Good are just one and the same; it is just looked in different aspect: Being as Itself, Truth as known in the mind, and Good as loved in the will. So, if there is no God, then there can't be objective morality.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not much of a problem for people whose true goal isn't god, though, is it? If you can't figure out why you shouldn't hurt someone apart from gods say so or wishes....it's not as if you possess any moral agency in the first place, so the problem is moot for you before you ever have to realize that being gods say so or wishes wouldn;t make it objective anyway.....

I mean really, wtf?

[theologian]

Not much of a problem for people whose true goal isn't god, though, is it? If you can't figure out why you shouldn't hurt someone apart from gods say so or wishes....it's not as if you possess any moral agency in the first place, so the problem is moot for you before you ever have to realize that being gods say so or wishes wouldn;t make it objective anyway.....

I mean really, wtf?

Well, why not hurt someone? Just because you want to? If so, then it is just an arbitrary choice, right? Isn't is Nietzsche is consistent when he says that it is just plagiarizing Christianity when secular are arguing for love instead of being true to reason alone?