Moral Argument for God's Existence

[Esquilax]

So you are saying that each person determines his or her morality, what is or isn't moral?

Well, there's also the issue of context; if this person has been alone his or her entire life- aside from raising some questions- then their behavior is stripped of a context in which the idea of moral and immoral acts have any meaning. If one isn't raised in a cultural context to help them determine the basis of morality, then what do they have? They've got no concept of harm to others, because there have been no others to harm.

But if this solitary person has a background with other people, then they have system of morality in place, because they've existed in a place where that morality matters, and if it's breached, there are other people to stop that.

Now, of course, they could break that moral code, but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent. The thing that's different, when considering this solitary person versus a person in society, is the punishment, not morality itself.

[Chas]

So you are saying that each person determines his or her morality, what is or isn't moral?

Each person can - that doesn't mean he does or should.

---

I would like to come to agreement, but there is a disconnect.

I am trying to get Genkaus to tell us what his definition of morality is. I gave mine.

I've given mine 3 or 4 times already.

Morality is a code of conduct.
Morality is conceptual guide about how one should behave and act.

Fine. What determines the our solitary person's morality?

[genkaus]

So you are saying that each person determines his or her morality, what is or isn't moral?

Well, there's also the issue of context; if this person has been alone his or her entire life- aside from raising some questions- then their behavior is stripped of a context in which the idea of moral and immoral acts have any meaning. If one isn't raised in a cultural context to help them determine the basis of morality, then what do they have? They've got no concept of harm to others, because there have been no others to harm.

But if this solitary person has a background with other people, then they have system of morality in place, because they've existed in a place where that morality matters, and if it's breached, there are other people to stop that.

Now, of course, they could break that moral code, but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent. The thing that's different, when considering this solitary person versus a person in society, is the punishment, not morality itself.

You are basically saying the same thing as Chas. And I am saying the opposite. I'm saying that even if a person has been alone his entire life, his behavior and actions still have a moral dimension. Even if he has no cultural context by which to determine the basis of morality, he'd still need it and have to come up with a different one. Even if there isn't any concept of harm or benefit to others, morality would still matter to him.

Chas doesn't seem to get my explanation - let's see if you can.

The primary difference between humans and animals is out level of intellect. It isn't our capacity to feel emotions or going through pain or pleasure - animals have that as well. It is our capacity to be aware of our own thoughts, motivations, desires and actions. Which is why, we are not bound by them. We can act in contradiction to our immediate motivations and desires. We can determine our actions according to different levels of motivations - immediate, short-term, long-term, ultimate - we can assign different preferences to them.

As a consequence of this quality of human beings, the philosophical question comes up - "What should I do?". Our biological/genetic/physiological is not equipped to answer that question. It can only dictate an action according to our short-term motivations. For any consideration beyond that, the answer lies in our intellect. That is the question that the branch of philosophy called ethics deals with. Any given morality is an attempt to answer that question.

This question can take on different forms - "What should I do?", "How should I live my life?", "What goals should I work towards?", "How should I behave?", "What actions should I undertake?" - but make no mistake, all of them are addressing the same issue. The obvious follow-up to any answer given here is the follow-up question - "Why should I do that?". So, while the answer to that question is not a part of morality, it is required to justify the given morality.

Now, here's how morality relates to labels like good/bad/right/wrong. If you look at how we use these labels in other fields, it'll be easier to understand. With regards to any inquiry, we have a set of pre-existing concepts (either axiomatic or otherwise established). We have a set of rules about grammar, math, science and so on. When a proposition is complementary to those principles, we regard it as right or good. When it is contradictory to them, we consider them wrong or bad. Since any given morality is essentially a set of principles, when our actions are according to it, we regard them as right or good and when they go against it, we regard it as bad or wrong.

Based on this, there are two distinct, yet coherent definitions of morality available to us:
1. Morality is a conceptual guide that tells us how we should or should not behave. (the essential, yet not commonly used definition)
Conduct in line with it is right and opposite to it is wrong.
2. Therefore, morality is the distinction between right and wrong conduct. (Consequential, yet commonly used definition)


Now, different philosophies, religions, cultures and even science, have come up with different answers to the essential question of "what should I do?". And depending upon the answer, the contextual applicability of morality may vary with it. But the essential meaning remains the same.

For example, Abrahamic religions' answer is "here is a book with the list of rules and following those rules is what you should do - that is our morality". The justification given is - "if you don't, you'll burn in hell".

Hinduism has its answer as "here is another list of rules and if you don't follow them, you'll be reborn as a pig".

Deontological ethics argue that certain rules are to be considered "inherently good", i.e automatically fall under the criteria of "should be done" by the virtue of their existence. And by that justification, those rules constitute morality, i.e. dictate "what one should do?"

Virtue ethics argue that certain qualities are to be considered as "should have" i.e. any human should have and try to preserve those qualities. Thus, morality here is dictated by how well your conduct preserves those qualities.

Then there is the atheist favorite - consequential ethics.

Some go for evolutionary morality - whereby how much an action helps the survival of the species is the criteria to determine morality.

Cultural ethics - which Chas seems to favor - suggest that your culture and society has come up with a set of rules and that those rules constitute morality. The justification given here is that if you don't follow the, you'll be ostracized/punished.

You seem to go for the harm argument - where you assume that harming others is something that "should not be done" and benefiting others is something that "should be done" and determining morality on that basis.

As you can see, all these different justifications vary with regards to their objectivity, truthfulness, rationality etc. Which is why all these different moralities have different scope (to which actions do they apply) and applicability (to whom do they apply). But what they do have in common is that they all attempt to answer the same question and which is why they all qualify as morality.

And this is why morality is very much relevant to our solitary person. If he can ask himself the question "What should I do?", then regardless of his answer or his chosen criteria for it, his answer is a type of morality. Obviously, given the absence of any other conscious beings to help or to harm, choosing your morality makes no sense for him. Similarly, given the absence of any cultural diction, choosing a morality on Chas' criteria also makes no sense. But he can choose from the other available moralities. Or he can develop his own morality based on a logical and coherent view of his environment. Or he can simply follow whatever desires that occur to him and use that as a basis for his morality. However he chooses and whichever he chooses, that's a choice he cannot escape. And that gives the moral dimension to his actions. That forms the basis on which his actions can be considered moral or immoral.

---

Fine. What determines the our solitary person's morality?

His needs.

[Chas]

Well, there's also the issue of context; if this person has been alone his or her entire life- aside from raising some questions- then their behavior is stripped of a context in which the idea of moral and immoral acts have any meaning. If one isn't raised in a cultural context to help them determine the basis of morality, then what do they have? They've got no concept of harm to others, because there have been no others to harm.

But if this solitary person has a background with other people, then they have system of morality in place, because they've existed in a place where that morality matters, and if it's breached, there are other people to stop that.

Now, of course, they could break that moral code, but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent. The thing that's different, when considering this solitary person versus a person in society, is the punishment, not morality itself.

You are basically saying the same thing as Chas. And I am saying the opposite. I'm saying that even if a person has been alone his entire life, his behavior and actions still have a moral dimension. Even if he has no cultural context by which to determine the basis of morality, he'd still need it and have to come up with a different one. Even if there isn't any concept of harm or benefit to others, morality would still matter to him.

Chas doesn't seem to get my explanation - let's see if you can.

The primary difference between humans and animals is out level of intellect. It isn't our capacity to feel emotions or going through pain or pleasure - animals have that as well. It is our capacity to be aware of our own thoughts, motivations, desires and actions. Which is why, we are not bound by them. We can act in contradiction to our immediate motivations and desires. We can determine our actions according to different levels of motivations - immediate, short-term, long-term, ultimate - we can assign different preferences to them.

As a consequence of this quality of human beings, the philosophical question comes up - "What should I do?". Our biological/genetic/physiological is not equipped to answer that question. It can only dictate an action according to our short-term motivations. For any consideration beyond that, the answer lies in our intellect. That is the question that the branch of philosophy called ethics deals with. Any given morality is an attempt to answer that question.

This question can take on different forms - "What should I do?", "How should I live my life?", "What goals should I work towards?", "How should I behave?", "What actions should I undertake?" - but make no mistake, all of them are addressing the same issue. The obvious follow-up to any answer given here is the follow-up question - "Why should I do that?". So, while the answer to that question is not a part of morality, it is required to justify the given morality.

Now, here's how morality relates to labels like good/bad/right/wrong. If you look at how we use these labels in other fields, it'll be easier to understand. With regards to any inquiry, we have a set of pre-existing concepts (either axiomatic or otherwise established). We have a set of rules about grammar, math, science and so on. When a proposition is complementary to those principles, we regard it as right or good. When it is contradictory to them, we consider them wrong or bad. Since any given morality is essentially a set of principles, when our actions are according to it, we regard them as right or good and when they go against it, we regard it as bad or wrong.

Based on this, there are two distinct, yet coherent definitions of morality available to us:
1. Morality is a conceptual guide that tells us how we should or should not behave. (the essential, yet not commonly used definition)
Conduct in line with it is right and opposite to it is wrong.
2. Therefore, morality is the distinction between right and wrong conduct. (Consequential, yet commonly used definition)


Now, different philosophies, religions, cultures and even science, have come up with different answers to the essential question of "what should I do?". And depending upon the answer, the contextual applicability of morality may vary with it. But the essential meaning remains the same.

For example, Abrahamic religions' answer is "here is a book with the list of rules and following those rules is what you should do - that is our morality". The justification given is - "if you don't, you'll burn in hell".

Hinduism has its answer as "here is another list of rules and if you don't follow them, you'll be reborn as a pig".

Deontological ethics argue that certain rules are to be considered "inherently good", i.e automatically fall under the criteria of "should be done" by the virtue of their existence. And by that justification, those rules constitute morality, i.e. dictate "what one should do?"

Virtue ethics argue that certain qualities are to be considered as "should have" i.e. any human should have and try to preserve those qualities. Thus, morality here is dictated by how well your conduct preserves those qualities.

Then there is the atheist favorite - consequential ethics.

Some go for evolutionary morality - whereby how much an action helps the survival of the species is the criteria to determine morality.

Cultural ethics - which Chas seems to favor - suggest that your culture and society has come up with a set of rules and that those rules constitute morality. The justification given here is that if you don't follow the, you'll be ostracized/punished.

You seem to go for the harm argument - where you assume that harming others is something that "should not be done" and benefiting others is something that "should be done" and determining morality on that basis.

As you can see, all these different justifications vary with regards to their objectivity, truthfulness, rationality etc. Which is why all these different moralities have different scope (to which actions do they apply) and applicability (to whom do they apply). But what they do have in common is that they all attempt to answer the same question and which is why they all qualify as morality.

And this is why morality is very much relevant to our solitary person. If he can ask himself the question "What should I do?", then regardless of his answer or his chosen criteria for it, his answer is a type of morality. Obviously, given the absence of any other conscious beings to help or to harm, choosing your morality makes no sense for him. Similarly, given the absence of any cultural diction, choosing a morality on Chas' criteria also makes no sense. But he can choose from the other available moralities. Or he can develop his own morality based on a logical and coherent view of his environment. Or he can simply follow whatever desires that occur to him and use that as a basis for his morality. However he chooses and whichever he chooses, that's a choice he cannot escape. And that gives the moral dimension to his actions. That forms the basis on which his actions can be considered moral or immoral.

" However he chooses and whichever he chooses, that's a choice he cannot escape. And that gives the moral dimension to his actions. That forms the basis on which his actions can be considered moral or immoral."

How is it moral or immoral? By what standard?

---

Fine. What determines the our solitary person's morality?

His needs.
[/quote]

So the solitary person's 'morality' is entirely functional?

[genkaus]

"However he chooses and whichever he chooses, that's a choice he cannot escape. And that gives the moral dimension to his actions. That forms the basis on which his actions can be considered moral or immoral."

How is it moral or immoral? By what standard?

You mean how he chooses his morality? That choice is amoral. And as indicated by the existence of so many different moralities - there isn't a fixed standard, yet.

So the solitary person's 'morality' is entirely functional?

All morality is entirely functional.

[max-greece]

Our solitary person on the island discovers there are wild pigs. He sets traps and mortally wounds one. He has 2 choices - let the animal bleed to death in great pain or put it out of its misery ASAP.

If he chooses the latter he is making a moral decision that does not relate directly to his survival.

[Simon Moon]

Our solitary person on the island discovers there are wild pigs. He sets traps and mortally wounds one. He has 2 choices - let the animal bleed to death in great pain or put it out of its misery ASAP.

If he chooses the latter he is making a moral decision that does not relate directly to his survival.

But it does relate an other conscious being.

[max-greece]

Our solitary person on the island discovers there are wild pigs. He sets traps and mortally wounds one. He has 2 choices - let the animal bleed to death in great pain or put it out of its misery ASAP.

If he chooses the latter he is making a moral decision that does not relate directly to his survival.

But it does relate an other conscious being.

Yes - but not of the same species and therefore neither societal nor religious in nature.

Plus its hard to come up with a moral position for a carrot.

[HenWladFyNhadau]

So, the moral argument, one of the stranger apologetic arguments in my opinion. The William Lane Craig rendition (which is the oft-repeated one) goes something like this:

P1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

P2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.

C) Therefore, God exists.

Man, where to start. When I first joined the forum I waded into a thread wherein a user was persistently pushing this argument. If I recall correctly, they said that if there was no structural error, then the argument works and I had to become a theist. But clearly that's not true, the argument could easily be unsound.

Anyway, one common thing that I see is that, at least online by William Lane Craig parrots, the 1st premise in the argument is never defended. Like the user I mentioned above, it's treated as self-evident. Sometimes an appeal to authority is made, often by saying "Atheist philosophers X and Y agree", without realizing, given most philosophers are atheists (~73%) and most are moral realists (~60%), so that isn't seemingly a widespread belief (and this appeal is kind of lazy I think, used to ignore defending a controversial assertion).


Furthermore, the argument is really nonsensical at base. It amounts to saying "Solve meta-ethics or God exists", without specifying why that is the case, or if that even makes sense (and the Divine Command theory often pushed by users of this argument is disturbing). William Lane Craig himself has usually done this sort of not defending that premise except by appeals to authority either.

And as the philosopher Stephen Law says, you could just as easily conclude that moral realism ('objective moral values and duties') is false by not accepting thesecond premise, and moral anti-realism is a defensible position i think.

Lastly, isn't the phrase 'objective values' contradictory? Values necessitate some conscious mind to be the valuer, but how can values be independent of (objective) minds while not being entirely dependent on them? I have a feeling it's a simple misunderstanding in my part.

I argue with a southern baptist pastor on a regular basis. He consistently refers to the bible as "objective truth" when I express my disagreement with laws set forth in it....wna take a crack @ that :-P I almost pissed my pants laughing the first time he said it.

[pocaracas]

Plus its hard to come up with a moral position for a carrot.

That's because there isn't.
You could come up with a moral position for the pig, because you acknowledge that it suffers when hurt, like a human being.

OR... the carrot, will you leave it to rot, or eat it while it's ripe?