Moral Argument for God's Existence

[bennyboy]

Look to the given example of a "moral man".

I'd start with the most generic definition of morality - "a conceptual guide regarding what a moral agent should do" - which is applicable to and descriptive of all the views regarding morality out there. Similarly, I'd look to the qualities essential to all beings we regard as a moral agents. For example, "the capacity to reflect rationally upon one's thoughts, desires and motivations and act accordingly" - unless the entity has this quality, we do not regard it as a moral agent.

Agreed.

Now, if we find out a particular drive or motivation to be the automatic result of that quality - and therefore, the automatic result of being a moral agent - then that would not be a subjective desire or motivation based on the unique experiences and biology of that moral agent, but objective, as in, inherent in the nature of a moral agent.

Wait a minute. We've agreed on one of the criteria in establishing moral agency: "the capacity to reflect rationally upon one's thoughts, desires and motivations and act accordingly" However, this quality is not sufficient to establish moral agency. The thoughts must be based on certain kinds of ideas, and these must come from experience. The motivations must involve a desire for the well-being of others, or at least a fear of being socially castigated for violating that well-being.

Otherwise, a sociopath could say, "Hmmmm. I have a desire to see what people do when I peel off their skin in my basement. If I present candy to enough children, I will eventually find one willing to follow me into my house," and be called a moral agent by your definition.

At some point, we have to accept that morality depends on ideas about what is good or bad, and that these ideas require experience, and that experience varies from person to person. The acceptance of some ideas (keep children safe) vs. others (eat them in your basement) is a matter of democracy: more people prefer to keep children safe, and they will act against the fewer who prefer to eat them with A1 sauce.

Right now, given that the desire to live and to be happy is the most common feature seen in humans - the only examples of moral agents available to us - I'm assuming that that is the fundamental drive resulting from being a moral agent. So far as psychology has been able to determine the fundamental needs present in humans - it seems to agree to this. However, I do accept that it is not an established fact and am open to alternatives.

I'm not so sure the desire to be happy IS foundational to human behavior, moral or otherwise. The majority of people are largely unhappy, I believe, and this is due to their decision-making and to the ideas they adopt. If you really wanted to be happy, you could choose to see goodness in your current circumstances, and not to desire change.

I think a better try would be something like, "The willingness to remove self-bias from consideration of social behaviors." So whether I work for happiness or not, I shouldn't knowingly do things that will impede the happiness of others. A moral sociopath would say, "Yes, my quickest path to happiness is clearly eat little Jenny, but she doesn't want to be eaten, and her parents don't want her to be eaten, so I won't." Rather than serving his motivations, he is deliberately denying them, and may possibly suffer for it. He may not even have the ability to feel sympathy-- it may be that it is only the IDEA of morality that causes him to behave properly.