The Objective Moral Values Argument AGAINST The Existence Of God

[Amarok]

Late to the party, but I gotta say, I don't like your argument, Hams. I get that it is meant to push a theist's own illogic back in his/her face, and it's good for that purpose. But so many false premises, man. Wowza!

But i don't think it was meant for much else

[robvalue]

Be careful also about the equivocation between the two meanings of "law":

1) A declaration that certain actions will be met with certain consequences (in its simplest form)

2) A literal restriction which shapes what can and can't happen (such as gravity)

Clearly there is no moral law with regard to the second definition. There should be, if God was concerned, as Hammy noted earlier. But apparently he thinks limiting our ability to jump to the moon is more important than limiting our ability to smash a baby's head in with a wrench.

[vulcanlogician]

The way I see it, for there to be universal moral laws, there needs to be a law giver.

That's why I don't think it would make sense for an atheist to say they think morality is objective. But most don't.

I thought you accepted natural law theory, and here you are pushing divine command. Tsk, tsk.

---

On a law conception of ethics, conformity with the virtues requires obeying the divine law. A divine law requires the existence of God, as the divine lawgiver. Anscombe claims that since we have given up on God’s existence, we should also give up the use of moral terms that are derived from a theistic worldview. Since we have given up belief in God, we should also give up the moral understanding that rests on such belief, and engage in moral philosophy without using such terms. For Anscombe, this meant that we should abandon talk of morality as law, and instead focus on morality as virtue.

Alan Donagan (1977) argues against these conclusions. Donagan’s view is that Anscombe was mistaken on two counts. First, he rejects her claim that we can only treat morality as a system of law if we also presuppose the existence of a divine lawgiver. Second, Donagan contends that neither must we abandon law-based conceptions of morality for an Aristotelian virtue ethic. The reason for this, according to Donagan, is that a divine command must express God’s reason in order for it to be expressive of a divine law.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/

---

[The Grand Nudger]

Be careful also about the equivocation between the two meanings of "law":

1) A declaration that certain actions will be met with certain consequences (in its simplest form)

2) A literal restriction which shapes what can and can't happen (such as gravity)

Clearly there is no moral law with regard to the second definition. There should be, if God was concerned, as Hammy noted earlier. But apparently he thinks limiting our ability to jump to the moon is more important than limiting our ability to smash a baby's head in with a wrench.

Mysterious Ways™* 

---

*for some values of the term mystery

---

[robvalue]

It's pretty easy to show that anyone who "believes" in objective morality doesn't actually care about it. Well, except a few psychotic theists I have come across.

What opinions about what is moral and what is not would you be prepared to reverse if you discovered that you were objectively incorrect about them? (Or for theists, you find out God declares the opposite of what you had previously thought.)

That's a different thread I was going to make before actually. Hmm. My answer is that I wouldn't change my opinion about anything. I couldn't care less what the "moral facts" are, if such a thing is coherent.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Rob
If you make dat thread I'll be there.


Personally, I'd be willing to change my moral appraisal of -anything- in favor of an objective demonstration to the contrary.  That's not going to change a host of other things about my opinion of that x, though.

[Catholic_Lady]

The way I see it, for there to be universal moral laws, there needs to be a law giver.

That's why I don't think it would make sense for an atheist to say they think morality is objective. But most don't.

I thought you accepted natural law theory, and here you are pushing divine command. Tsk, tsk.

---

On a law conception of ethics, conformity with the virtues requires obeying the divine law. A divine law requires the existence of God, as the divine lawgiver. Anscombe claims that since we have given up on God’s existence, we should also give up the use of moral terms that are derived from a theistic worldview. Since we have given up belief in God, we should also give up the moral understanding that rests on such belief, and engage in moral philosophy without using such terms. For Anscombe, this meant that we should abandon talk of morality as law, and instead focus on morality as virtue.

Alan Donagan (1977) argues against these conclusions. Donagan’s view is that Anscombe was mistaken on two counts. First, he rejects her claim that we can only treat morality as a system of law if we also presuppose the existence of a divine lawgiver. Second, Donagan contends that neither must we abandon law-based conceptions of morality for an Aristotelian virtue ethic. The reason for this, according to Donagan, is that a divine command must express God’s reason in order for it to be expressive of a divine law.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/

---

Natural Law and belief in God go hand in hand.

---

.

Natural law is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

[robvalue]

@Rob
If you make dat thread I'll be there.


Personally, I'd be willing to change my moral appraisal of -anything- in favor of an objective demonstration to the contrary.  That's not going to change a host of other things about my opinion of that x, though.

I'll go do that then, cool cheers

[Amarok]

Natural Law and belief in God go hand in hand.

law and moral facts are not the same things . And even then a theory of natural laws has shang all to do with magic ogity bogity.

---

Natural moral  theology is bunkum