Theistic morality

[Purple Rabbit]

Just because, as a phenomenon, morality is a subjective thing that has changed from culture to culture, that doesn't mean moral standards themselves are subjective, though.A slave-owner was morally wrong at the time, even though society tolerated slave-owning. No doubt rjh4 would now say, 'Why were they wrong? If you don't have God, there can be no objective morals'. But he has yet to show us why God's command is not arbitrary, and why the Bible doesn't permit slavery. Theism gets us nowhere on the objective morality front.

Please explain to me to what absolute moral standard you are referring here. Is it not just your moral standard with which you judge the past? Is it the moral standard of the slaves? Is it the moral standard of slave traders at that time? I don't see how that can be? It seems to me that you are asserting some mother of all moral standards here without the evidence to support it. Slavery is condoned in the bible but nowadays seen as wrong by the church. Isn't that a clear indication that there is no absolute reference for moral?

Personally, I believe morality comes from the recognition that the interests of our fellow humans and those of other species are just as important to them as our own are to us. Once we suppose this to be true, we have the basis for a solid utilitarian ethical system.

You don't need any absolute moral standard for that. It's just an economic choice for synergy over battle that both involved parties can benefit from given the boundary condition are in place (like mutual trust of a certain degree). Also observe that the economic rule itself is an IS not an OUGHT. Given the right conditions it will play out no matter whether there is explicit rephrasing of it into prescriptive moral codes. You cannot derive an ought from an is but it may be practical to sync an OUGHT to an IS, i.e. it may be beneficial to all involved.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Please explain to me to what absolute moral standard you are referring here. Is it not just your moral standard with which you judge the past? Is it the moral standard of the slaves? Is it the moral standard of slave traders at that time? I don't see how that can be? It seems to me that you are asserting some mother of all moral standards here without the evidence to support it. Slavery is condoned in the bible but nowadays seen as wrong by the church. Isn't that a clear indication that there is no absolute reference for moral?

Historically speaking, there has certainly never been one underlying moral code which all people shared. That doesn't mean that there isn't a rationally based moral code which would have been true in the past, regardless of what people believed. Denying this would pave the way for moral subjectivism or moral nihilism, and I think we've agreed that this isn't a practical viewpoint to hold.

You don't need any absolute moral standard for that. It's just an economic choice for synergy over battle that both involved parties can benefit from given the boundary condition are in place (like mutual trust of a certain degree). Also observe that the economic rule itself is an IS not an OUGHT. Given the right conditions it will play out no matter whether there is explicit rephrasing of it into prescriptive moral codes. You cannot derive an ought from an is but it may be practical to sync an OUGHT to an IS, i.e. it may be beneficial to all involved.

If I've understood you correctly, you're saying that morality is essentially an agreement about how to behave, based on the fact that mutual moral agreements are benefical for all parties involved. This certainly explains how morality comes to be in the first place, but it doesn't explain why we shouldn't hurt a baby, a mentally disabled person or a dog, none of whom can confer any reciprocal benefit on us. So, our morality is more complicated than that, generally.

[Edwardo Piet]

I wonder if this article would interest anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality

I may think of buying Harris' new book. Definitely looks interesting to me. I want his others too though.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

Historically speaking, there has certainly never been one underlying moral code which all people shared. That doesn't mean that there isn't a rationally based moral code which would have been true in the past, regardless of what people believed.

This is a contradiction. If historically there never was a shared common moral code than there can be none in retrospection. To posit one in hindsight would be a revisionistic action trying to rewrite history. You cannot just posit that moral positions on gender equality and slavery are absolute throughout time.

Denying this would pave the way for moral subjectivism or moral nihilism, and I think we've agreed that this isn't a practical viewpoint to hold.

If moral subjectivism is a good description of reality I don't see why we should avoid it. We haven't agreed that moral subjectivism is not a practical viewpoint. It gives an historically and culturally accurate description of reality. By asserting that the moral code for humans SHOULD be absolute and therefore IS absolute, you derive an IS from an OUGHT. Moral subjectivism states that there is no objective fact of the matter over whether a specific action is right or wrong. It does not exclude a moral code shared by the majority of world population.

You don't need any absolute moral standard for that. It's just an economic choice for synergy over battle that both involved parties can benefit from given the boundary condition are in place (like mutual trust of a certain degree). Also observe that the economic rule itself is an IS not an OUGHT. Given the right conditions it will play out no matter whether there is explicit rephrasing of it into prescriptive moral codes. You cannot derive an ought from an is but it may be practical to sync an OUGHT to an IS, i.e. it may be beneficial to all involved.

If I've understood you correctly, you're saying that morality is essentially an agreement about how to behave, based on the fact that mutual moral agreements are benefical for all parties involved. This certainly explains how morality comes to be in the first place, but it doesn't explain why we shouldn't hurt a baby, a mentally disabled person or a dog, none of whom can confer any reciprocal benefit on us. So, our morality is more complicated than that, generally.

Historically speaking babys, dogs and mentally disabled have been hurt under culturally dictated moral codes. In certain groups of world population the hurting of dogs and the mentally disabled sadly enough is still a common practice. If you wanna explain that in other groups these things are seen as morally wrong you should look at the way how stability in these societies is ensured by moral agreements.

[The Omnissiunt One]

This is a contradiction. If historically there never was a shared common moral code than there can be none in retrospection. To posit one in hindsight would be a revisionistic action trying to rewrite history. You cannot just posit that moral positions on gender equality and slavery are absolute throughout time.

What I am distinguishing between is what people did believe and what people ought to have believed. So in no way am I trying to rewrite history. We can claim that people believed different things at different times, but that doesn't mean that what they believed at any given time was necessarily morally right, just because they believed it.

Denying this would pave the way for moral subjectivism or moral nihilism, and I think we've agreed that this isn't a practical viewpoint to hold.

Again, I've never derived an is from an ought. Although people have always believed different things, and therefore morality as a phenomenon has varied from culture to culture, and person to person, I'd argue that slavery was always wrong, voluntary euthanasia always right, etc., on a utilitarian basis. This has no bearing on what people believed.

Historically speaking babys, dogs and mentally disabled have been hurt under culturally dictated moral codes. In certain groups of world population the hurting of dogs and the mentally disabled sadly enough is still a common practice. If you wanna explain that in other groups these things are seen as morally wrong you should look at the way how stability in these societies is ensured by moral agreements.

Have I ever said that other cultures regard these things as morally wrong? Clearly some don't. That doesn't mean that they're right.

[Purple Rabbit]

This is a contradiction. If historically there never was a shared common moral code than there can be none in retrospection. To posit one in hindsight would be a revisionistic action trying to rewrite history. You cannot just posit that moral positions on gender equality and slavery are absolute throughout time.

What I am distinguishing between is what people did believe and what people ought to have believed. So in no way am I trying to rewrite history. We can claim that people believed different things at different times, but that doesn't mean that what they believed at any given time was necessarily morally right, just because they believed it.

So as I understand you correctly the "That doesn't mean that there isn't a rationally based moral code which would have been true in the past, regardless of what people believed" refers to your perception of a moral code that you think should apply at all times and in all places. But, dear friend, that is your subjective opinion. It is an OUGHT, a prescription, not a FACT. As such it has no more value than any other opinion on the matter. Also I think it is silly to, as you propose, judge historical events on this basis. You can say that according to your moral standards now you dissaprove of certain historic facts in the past, but as a prescription for the past it has no meaning and it will not change a thing about those historic facts.

Have I ever said that other cultures regard these things as morally wrong? Clearly some don't. That doesn't mean that they're right.

I can agree with that and, based on what I have seen you writing here, we actually might share pretty much of the moral values. But the formulation of opinion won't make it fact. The only thing that might help is sharing it in the broadest possible way, the result will be something like the Declaration On Human Rights and that is available online.

[rjh4 is back]

So could God not have had the foresight to say that he doesn't approve of slavery, just as he did of the (comparatively minor) crime of divorce?

I’m not sure what the point of the question is. The discussion is what the Bible says about the subject not what the Bible might have said about the subject. I would say that the Bible does not explicitly say that slavery is good nor does it explicitly say that it is not good. Certainly it allows it. I can, however, point to other explicit statements of how we should behave (love your neighbor as yourself, the Golden Rule) and reasonably, I think, extrapolate this to conclude that slavery is not good based on Biblical principles even though it is not explicitly condemned by the Bible.

I do not see this as being an inconsistent position at all. However, even if you do…I hope you appreciate my conclusion even though you might not agree with how I reached it.

Purpose is a characteristic which derives from design. A spear has purpose for humans, as it was made by them for spear-like functions. A rock, on the other hand, has attributes which serve no function, as it is the product of random natural forces. God, as a being that just exists, would seem to be more like a rock than a spear.

Except humans have used these rocks, with attributes which supposedly have no function, for many things: weapons, tools, source of metals.

Nevertheless, I think I understand the point you are trying to make regarding God. But I still do not see how this makes His nature arbitrary in the way we usually think of the word. Furthermore, even if you could characterize God’s nature as arbitrary because He was not created, I fail to see where this leads you. God’s nature is still His nature and if He created the universe and makes the rules for it, isn’t it logical to conclude that we should follow His rules and not our own? (I understand you would not agree with the initial premise and argue from that that the conclusion is flawed. However, I am asking you to assume that the premise is true and see if you agree that the conclusion reasonably follows.)

As the passage about slavery which I quoted shows, basing your morals on the Bible is distinctly dodgy. The Golden Rule is no doubt a good basis for morality, but the fact that you emphasise that, rather than any of the morally dubious parts of the OT, suggests that perhaps you don't get your morality from Biblical principles after all.

I disagree. 1) I do not think the passage you cited regarding slavery even remotely shows that basing morals on the Bible is distinctly dodgy. How do you think you have established that? At best you have shown that the Bible allows slavery. The Bible doesn’t command me to be a slave owner. The Bible doesn’t say that slavery is good but as noted above, I can apply other explicit Biblical principles to conclude that it isn’t. 2) The fact that I emphasize the Golden Rule and loving ones neighbor as yourself in no way suggests that I don’t get my morality from Biblical principles. You might want to read the NT and see what it says about the law (i.e., the Mosaic law of the OT) to see why Christians, or at least I, focus on the NT teachings. I would suggest that you begin with the book of Romans.

In my view, the verification example would seem to be far better proof that God has actually commanded something than believing that the words of an ancient book to be an accurate record of his commands.

Lol. Point well taken.

Maybe I would follow him out of pure self-interest, but I, unlike you, wouldn't have to believe that killing grannies was right, as the basis of my morality is not God's commands, and wouldn't be even if God were real.

Are you saying that even if you knew God existed, created the universe, and makes the rules for it, you would still rebel against God?

Nope. It's subjective. Social morality is based upon the agreement of what is wrong, which is why people can still have personal morality that differs with what is generally agreed upon by the society. I find it morally wrong to eat animals for many reasons. I'm not going to detail my reasons here, because that is not the point. The point is I don't eat meat based on certain ethical and health convictions, and there is no doubt many people here would vehemently disagree with me on this issue, and that's fine. We can still as a group of people agree that it's morally wrong to kill people.

You're clinging onto the usage of my word know to say, "Ahah! You have to be objective!" Nope. Our society has evolved our morality to declare that treating women like property and keeping slaves is wrong, based on our propensity to learn and recognize what benefits the society as a whole (The basis for morality). We as a society know slavery is wrong because we have deemed it to be such based on the consequences of slavery and recognition that all people are equal. Therefore, we know people in the past are wrong. I realize this is a difficult concept to grasp, but as I said before, if morality was objective, then it had to always be wrong, and we know from that people in the past did not consider it wrong. Therefore, subjective.

I do admit that my explanation is slightly messy, it's a complicated discussion and difficult to express.

Sounds like you would define “right” and “wrong” (at least in terms of social behavior) something like:

Wrong: against what a society agrees as being appropriate behavior
Right: what a society agrees as being appropriate behavior

Would you agree with this or would you define them differently?

Assuming you agree one could say two things:

Slavery is wrong.

And

Slavery is against what a society agrees as being appropriate behavior.

I think those two statements mean different things and I would guess that most would view them differently (I have no support for this…it is just a gut feeling. I could be worng.). Do they mean the same thing to you?

Would you not admit that we knew better when it comes bloodletting? It was used as a means of curing diseases, but know we know better through scientific inquiry that it was 100% wrong and didn't do a damn thing. It's not pompous to say that we have built our knowledge to the point where we "know better" than people 1000 years ago. I know better than Galileo what the universe is like because I was lucky enough to exist in time were from his knowledge we have built a more comprehensive understanding of the universe that is readily available to people like me. That doesn't mean I dismiss what Galileo did know and his achievements. I know better than Kelvin who postulated the wrong age of the earth, because he knew nothing of nuclear energy.

I do not fault people of the past from making decisions based on their limited understanding of science, medicine, philosophy, etc... Yet, the fact remains we have built our knowledge from them and what some of what they said was good but what some of what they said was wrong and just simply doesn't apply anymore.

Of course our knowledge is better because it's more complete. We have vastly more information to work with. And in 1000 years, those people will have better knowledge and know better than us in matters of science, medicine, and philosophy.

We've made wondrous achievements on the backs of those who came before, and people will continue to do so long into the future.

Edit: I just realized the futility of using examples from science, especially related to age of earth and astronomy with a creationist, but, I'm to lazy to think of others and it's lunchtime.

In spite of the fact that I would disagree on some of the details you mentioned , I do understand what you are saying as it relates to science. However, the acceptableness of slavery and wife beating do not seem like scientific issues to me. So I will repeat my two question that I don’t think you really answered but are relevant to the discussion:

What exactly did we learn that indicated that such previously held views on slavery and wife beating are "wrong"? What did we learn that makes them "wrong" even when such things were acceptable or tolerated previously?

Sure...but in what sense. Certainly in the sense that it was tolerated. Not necessarily in the sense that it is accepted as a good thing.

Sorry to but in,but that is a bare faced lie or willful ignorance..

Christians not only acceped and condoned slavery but argued it was the will of God for centuries.By definition,the will of God cannot be anything but good.

The issue being discussed is not what Christians have accepted regarding slavery using Bible passages to support their position. The issue being discussed is what the Bible actually says about it. Clearly you have provided plenty of support for what you said about the position of some Christians on the issue. I do not, however, think you have established that the Bible says slavery is good and I have given my reasons in previous posts.

Consequently, I do not see anything I said as a “bare faced lie or willful ignorance”. But if you disagree, so be it.

[downbeatplumb]

Just to move the conversation away from slavery for a second.

My take on theistic morality is that it is inevitably lesser than atheist morality.

When a theist does a good deed often it is to please, god or because they are afraid that 'god is watching' and will go to hell if they dont make up for some past misdemeaner.

This means that any "good" act they do is tainted with their desire to please or appease their god.

When an atheist does a good deed it is because they are acting in a moral way without the threatened stick of damnation and without the hope of pleaseing a god.

This makes the act more meaningful in my eyes.

[rjh4 is back]

Just to move the conversation away from slavery for a second.

My take on theistic morality is that it is inevitably lesser than atheist morality.

When a theist does a good deed often it is to please, god or because they are afraid that 'god is watching' and will go to hell if they dont make up for some past misdemeaner.

This means that any "good" act they do is tainted with their desire to please or appease their god.

When an atheist does a good deed it is because they are acting in a moral way without the threatened stick of damnation and without the hope of pleaseing a god.

This makes the act more meaningful in my eyes.

Even within this view, though, would you agree that to realistically determine which acts are more "meaningful" one would need to know all the motivations for an action? In other words, a "good" act by an atheist might not be motivated by a desire to please God but it may very well be motivated by a desire to please someone else or to please oneself. In such a case, wouldn't that bring the meaningfulness of the act to the same level as a "good" act by a theist and render inaccurate your conclusion that theistic morality is "inevitably" lesser than atheist morality?

[The Omnissiunt One]

So as I understand you correctly the "That doesn't mean that there isn't a rationally based moral code which would have been true in the past, regardless of what people believed" refers to your perception of a moral code that you think should apply at all times and in all places. But, dear friend, that is your subjective opinion. It is an OUGHT, a prescription, not a FACT. As such it has no more value than any other opinion on the matter. Also I think it is silly to, as you propose, judge historical events on this basis. You can say that according to your moral standards now you dissaprove of certain historic facts in the past, but as a prescription for the past it has no meaning and it will not change a thing about those historic facts.

Of course my believing that something in the past was wrong won't change it. Why is it therefore silly to make moral judgements about them, given that my intention is not to alter history like some crazed mad scientist (though I might if that were possible)?

Your assertion that my moral views are no more than opinion entail that you subscribe to a form of moral subjectivism, which would mean that you couldn't consistently condemn any action. Besides, moral subjectivism is very controversial within the philosophy of ethics, and most contemporary philosophers reject it. Even if it is just an opinion, that doesn't mean that my moral system is no more defensible than any other, assuming that we have already accepted the validity of some kind of moral judgement.

I can agree with that and, based on what I have seen you writing here, we actually might share pretty much of the moral values. But the formulation of opinion won't make it fact. The only thing that might help is sharing it in the broadest possible way, the result will be something like the Declaration On Human Rights and that is available online.

Again, if you think morality is mere opinion, then the Declaration on Human Rights is no different from a lengthy and articulate text on the merits of strawberry ice-cream.

---

I’m not sure what the point of the question is. The discussion is what the Bible says about the subject not what the Bible might have said about the subject. I would say that the Bible does not explicitly say that slavery is good nor does it explicitly say that it is not good. Certainly it allows it. I can, however, point to other explicit statements of how we should behave (love your neighbor as yourself, the Golden Rule) and reasonably, I think, extrapolate this to conclude that slavery is not good based on Biblical principles even though it is not explicitly condemned by the Bible.

My point is, if God disapproves of slavery, as he clearly does of divorce, why did he not voice his disapproval, as he did of divorce? Or did he not consider it worthy of mention? This suggests that either he approves of slavery, or doesn't care. That he explicitly says it's okay to beat a slave confirms the fact that he doesn't consider slavery, or slave-beating, wrong, even if he doesn't think it's good. This explicit mention of slave-beating being okay would seem to overrule any extrapolations from the Golden Rule which you might attempt. After all, consistent application of the Golden Rule might... Heaven forbid... allow homosexuals to get married! And we wouldn't want that, because it explicitly says elsewhere than doing what their natural impulses tell them to is wrong!

I do not see this as being an inconsistent position at all. However, even if you do…I hope you appreciate my conclusion even though you might not agree with how I reached it.

I'm glad that you don't approve of slave-beating, though I'm not entirely clear why.

Except humans have used these rocks, with attributes which supposedly have no function, for many things: weapons, tools, source of metals.

This shows that conscious intent is necessary to give something purpose.

Nevertheless, I think I understand the point you are trying to make regarding God. But I still do not see how this makes His nature arbitrary in the way we usually think of the word.

One definition given is: 'Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle'. God's nature is clearly not governed according to necessity, reason, or principle,as that would imply design. Therefore, his nature is arbitrary.

Furthermore, even if you could characterize God’s nature as arbitrary because He was not created, I fail to see where this leads you. God’s nature is still His nature and if He created the universe and makes the rules for it, isn’t it logical to conclude that we should follow His rules and not our own? (I understand you would not agree with the initial premise and argue from that that the conclusion is flawed. However, I am asking you to assume that the premise is true and see if you agree that the conclusion reasonably follows.)

Nope, 'fraid not. I agree with neither the premise nor the conclusion derived from the premise. I fail to see any logically compelling reason why one's creator has any necessary moral authority over one. After all, if a scientist created a robot, would the robot be compelled to rob banks for the scientist? Please give me a reason to suppose otherwise.

I disagree. 1) I do not think the passage you cited regarding slavery even remotely shows that basing morals on the Bible is distinctly dodgy. How do you think you have established that? At best you have shown that the Bible allows slavery. The Bible doesn’t command me to be a slave owner. The Bible doesn’t say that slavery is good but as noted above, I can apply other explicit Biblical principles to conclude that it isn’t. 2) The fact that I emphasize the Golden Rule and loving ones neighbor as yourself in no way suggests that I don’t get my morality from Biblical principles. You might want to read the NT and see what it says about the law (i.e., the Mosaic law of the OT) to see why Christians, or at least I, focus on the NT teachings. I would suggest that you begin with the book of Romans.

Anything that allows slavery is bad. Care to disagree?

Lol. Point well taken.

It's nice that you're intellectually honest enough to concede a point. Have a rep point on me.

Are you saying that even if you knew God existed, created the universe, and makes the rules for it, you would still rebel against God?

No, but only out of pragmatic, self-interested considerations, not out of any sense of moral obligation.