RE: Objective morality as a proper basic belief
July 10, 2017 at 8:44 pm
(This post was last modified: July 10, 2017 at 9:40 pm by SteveII.)
(July 10, 2017 at 1:33 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: If a god exists, its mere existence can't logically define morality. Might doesn't make right. No one being defines the morality of every single living thing because rules and laws aren't morals. [1] Morality doesn't have an "opt-out" option either. So either the god that supposedly exists is subject to the same moral principles, or it is doesn't behave morally considering the stories attributed to it. [2]
What then is more likely? 1) humans assigned the morals/rules/laws that they wanted to govern their society to a god so as to try and assign their morals/rules/laws to some sort of unquestionable authority? or 2) a god exists but created a set of objective moral standards that aren't actually able to be objective in practice and that change through time in such a way so as to conform to the evolution of moral values through time? [3]
1. That's completely wrong. If God exists, then by definition, his nature is the only objective source of morals. All questions then have an explanatory ultimate. Without it, all you have is subjective morality. No one made any 'might makes right' argument.
2. A point of clarification (I was not clear in previous posts). God is bound by his nature. We are bound by God's commands. They are not the same thing.
3. None of your choices are correct. God could not create a set of moral objective standards. They would not be objective. The first horn of the Euthyphro dilemma. Lastly, moral values have not evolved--then they would have been subjective and again, you would be stuck with the first horn of the dilemma. If you are going to lay out the options for the opposing view, you should understand it.
Why do you think that nearly everyone believes there is a such thing as objective moral truths yet can't really articulate where they come from?
(July 10, 2017 at 4:36 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:(July 10, 2017 at 4:33 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. If God's actions are constrained by his infinite nature, then that is the explanatory stopping place for morality. Just as the meter stick in Paris confers the property of meter-hood on all other meters in the world but itself does not rely on the property of meter-hood to explain or ground the fact that it is one meter long, God's nature does not rely on the property of good to explain itself, but all other morality is judged by it. It makes no sense to keep asking "why" about the meter stick so likewise it make no sense to keep asking "why" about morality.
3. Everything is constrained by its intrinsic nature--especially a being that possesses superlative traits.
4. Define in a few sentences how, in your opinion, the basis or morality can be tied to harm. Otherwise I am going to waste time answering points I am not sure you are making.
"If God's actions are constrained by his infinite nature..."
By definition, something that is infinite is unconstrained. Your god has paradoxical qualities
Infinite is clearly modifying nature in that sentence. His nature had no beginning.
By definition, something that is infinite most certainly could be constrained. Infinite is a measure of duration, not ability.
(July 10, 2017 at 4:40 pm)JackRussell Wrote: Morality is tied to wellbeing, a VERY strong component of that is harm. Secular morality, well done, seeks to reduce harm and increase wellbeing. It ain't easy, but morality by divine fiat, that includes immorality by modern standards, fails ever time.
Good luck with your bible, I prefer an honest discussion about difficult stuff.
Isn't well being just a scientific measurement? That is decidedly a non-moral measurement and use of the word good and not a matter of moral value. Seems to be you are just redefining the word good in non-moral terms. With the redefinition, you cannot ask the question "is the pursuit of human well-being good?" because you would really be saying "is the pursuit of human well-being the pursuit of human well-being?".
Secondly, such a foundation of morality does nothing for the what ought to be question, What, if any, are our obligations? Science can tell us how we are but it does not tell us what it wrong with how we are. It cannot tell us that we have a moral obligation to take actions that are conducive to the pursuit of human well-being.
