Theistic morality

[tackattack]

---

@The Omnissiunt One - of course my own morality doesn't come from God or the Bible, that's preposterous, I've never claimed it did.

Isn't the whole point of Christianity to follow Jesus' teaching? Or have I missed something here? If you don't follow Biblical teaching in any way, how are you remotely Christian?

---

Following a good example (which is part of observations and subjective judgements which we all do) is far seperated from replacing your own sense of self and your own subjective moral judgments and saying that you not only learned, but unquestioningly follow the authority of another entity. My morality exists with or without doctrine, it's simply a tool used to better myself. The point where someone allows religion (or any doctrine of anything) to outweigh their sense of self is the point where blindness comes into play and reason is soon out the door.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Well, it's nice to meet a Christian who isn't obsessed with doctrine. It just seems that, given such a level of autonomy, you may as well dispense with the theological aspects of your morality altogether.

[rjh4 is back]

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!

Well, Omni, I do think you have made a pretty good case that for me to be totally consistent in my thinking/application that I should take the position that slavery is ok. Maybe I need to reconsider my position on slavery.

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

I don't think you can reasonably say that it's because I haven't explained my position to you.

After all, if a scientist created a robot, would the robot be compelled to rob banks for the scientist?

If the robot was programmed to rob banks for the scientist it would be compelled to do so wouldn't it?

Anything that allows slavery is bad. Care to disagree?

I do disagree. I would not say that the U.S. Constitution was bad up until 1865.

What is your standard for determining when an individual "allows" slavery since there are varying degrees of "allowing" something? For example, one who thinks slavery is ok clearly "allows" it, but one who doesn't think it is ok but wouldn't try to make it against the law could also be considered as "allowing" it as could someone who doesn't think it is ok but would never even report illegal slavery if they knew about it. Does an individual have to make some effort at stamping out slavery to fall within your view of "not allowing" slavery? This is not intended as being antagonistic. I am really interested in your answer.

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

While I do not hold the same position, I do understand yours.

[Purple Rabbit]

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)?

The only sensible reason to assess morals in a historic context would be to draw conclusions for the future from not to judge the past.

Your assertion that my moral views are no more than opinion entail that you subscribe to a form of moral subjectivism,...

I subscribe to a form of moral relativism.

...which would mean that you couldn't consistently condemn any action.

I disagree. I could condemn actions consistently from a framework of my choice or from a framework that is shared in a broad sense. This is precisely what is the process that led to the Declaration on Human Rights. Your alternative implicitly is a claim on absolute moral truth. Because your frame of reference is necessarily absolute if it is not subjective. So your claim that you can condemn actions consistently and objectively is a totally unsubstantiated claim of the absolute.

Besides, moral subjectivism is very controversial within the philosophy of ethics, and most contemporary philosophers reject it.

That's the fallacy known as the argument from authority. Philosophers would be out of work if they thought it was an argument at all.

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.

First part, OK that's what I call relative moral. Second part, not OK, it is not necessary to a priori accept some morals to define a relative moral framework.

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.

It definitely is not mere opinion. It has a noticeable effect on the world we live in because it is broadly shared opinion.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Well, Omni, I do think you have made a pretty good case that for me to be totally consistent in my thinking/application that I should take the position that slavery is ok. Maybe I need to reconsider my position on slavery.

Either that, or admit that the Bible is immoral nonsense, but somehow I doubt that's going to happen.

I don't think you can reasonably say that it's because I haven't explained my position to you.

You explained your reasons, but I didn't think them adequate, as I've explained.

If the robot was programmed to rob banks for the scientist it would be compelled to do so wouldn't it?

Yes, it would. But we have free will (according to religion), unlike a programmed robot. So, in a literal sense, the robot is 'compelled' to obey. I meant 'compelled', as in 'logically and morally compelled'.

I do disagree. I would not say that the U.S. Constitution was bad up until 1865.

What is your standard for determining when an individual "allows" slavery since there are varying degrees of "allowing" something? For example, one who thinks slavery is ok clearly "allows" it, but one who doesn't think it is ok but wouldn't try to make it against the law could also be considered as "allowing" it as could someone who doesn't think it is ok but would never even report illegal slavery if they knew about it. Does an individual have to make some effort at stamping out slavery to fall within your view of "not allowing" slavery? This is not intended as being antagonistic. I am really interested in your answer.

The Bible clearly thinks slavery is okay, because it explicitly says it thinks beating slaves is okay, as I've shown. For the Bible to be taken seriously as a moral guide, it should have explicitly condemned slavery, otherwise it is no moral guide at all.

While I do not hold the same position, I do understand yours.

Good, I'm glad I got my message across to you.

---

The only sensible reason to assess morals in a historic context would be to draw conclusions for the future from not to judge the past.

Yes, that's true.

I subscribe to a form of moral relativism.

If morality is just the view shared by most of society, all moral discussion is meaningless. No-one could ever argue that something was wrong if the rest of society doesn't agree, because that person would be wrong by definition. There could be no moral progress, and, indeed, the idea of moral progress would be redundant, as no one society could claim to be better than any other, as each abides by its own rules.

I disagree. I could condemn actions consistently from a framework of my choice or from a framework that is shared in a broad sense. This is precisely what is the process that led to the Declaration on Human Rights. Your alternative implicitly is a claim on absolute moral truth. Because your frame of reference is necessarily absolute if it is not subjective. So your claim that you can condemn actions consistently and objectively is a totally unsubstantiated claim of the absolute.

But what made the Declaration on Human Rights better than what went before, before it was accepted in society? As I've said, moral relativism is singularly unhelpful when it comes to moral disagreement. Utilitarianism, I believe, provides the best foundation for an objective ethical system.

That's the fallacy known as the argument from authority. Philosophers would be out of work if they thought it was an argument at all.

I'm well aware of the argument from authority. I was just pointing out that you'll have to justify your claim that moral relativism is true, because there is no consensus on it.

First part, OK that's what I call relative moral. Second part, not OK, it is not necessary to a priori accept some morals to define a relative moral framework.

I'm not sure that I've entirely understood you here. What I was saying was, it is necessary to accept that morality is not just subjective or relative to a society to be able to evaluate different ethical systems. Otherwise, they are all equally meaningless.

It definitely is not mere opinion. It has a noticeable effect on the world we live in because it is broadly shared opinion.

So, what would you say to someoone who rejected the values of the Declaration? How would you persuade them that they were good values? Saying, 'It's a broadly shared opinion' would convince no-one. Moral relativism provides no good reason for people to follow society's beliefs.

[Purple Rabbit]

I subscribe to a form of moral relativism.

If morality is just the view shared by most of society, all moral discussion is meaningless. No-one could ever argue that something was wrong if the rest of society doesn't agree, because that person would be wrong by definition. There could be no moral progress, and, indeed, the idea of moral progress would be redundant, as no one society could claim to be better than any other, as each abides by its own rules.

You're falsely assuming that a moral statement (an ought) can be made into a factual statement (an is). So now you are deriving an IS from an OUGHT. To make a case for a moral statement it is not necessary to be able to state it as fact. The thing that is needed is a sufficiently strong rationale that explains how a certain act affects the balance between beneficial consequences and detrimental consequences and a norm that is accompanying it. This rationale can be argued for if it is informed rationale. That is, empirical facts undergird the rationale. For instance if it is known from medical experiment that HIV cannot be transferred through normal contact, normal contact with HIV-infected people cannot be a reason for different treatment (discrimination) of HIV-infected. Also, it is not true that factualness of a moral statement, should it exist, ensures that no-one can disagree with it. You would need th rationale just the same.

I disagree. I could condemn actions consistently from a framework of my choice or from a framework that is shared in a broad sense. This is precisely what is the process that led to the Declaration on Human Rights. Your alternative implicitly is a claim on absolute moral truth. Because your frame of reference is necessarily absolute if it is not subjective. So your claim that you can condemn actions consistently and objectively is a totally unsubstantiated claim of the absolute.

But what made the Declaration on Human Rights better than what went before, before it was accepted in society? As I've said, moral relativism is singularly unhelpful when it comes to moral disagreement. Utilitarianism, I believe, provides the best foundation for an objective ethical system.

The relativeness of morals is the thing that makes it possible that morals can evolve in the first place. If moral is absolute there is no room for improvement because that would mean that the moral absolute of yesterday is thrown out of the window tomorrow, which is silly when we want to adhere any meaning to the "absolute" predicate. So the relativeness of morals is what made the coming into being of the DOHR possible. There was room to improve and there will be in the future because we become better informed about consequences of actions and how that affect the rationale.

First part, OK that's what I call relative moral. Second part, not OK, it is not necessary to a priori accept some morals to define a relative moral framework.

I'm not sure that I've entirely understood you here. What I was saying was, it is necessary to accept that morality is not just subjective or relative to a society to be able to evaluate different ethical systems. Otherwise, they are all equally meaningless.

As I've explained above meaning is created through a rationale about consequences of actions for a chosen (relative) goal. Just as an example:

Moral statement: abortion is allowed in the first month following conception
Rationale: the fetus has no conscious awareness in the first month following conception
Norm: no harm will be done to any conscious unborn child

Please observe that this all is relative. A traditional christian won't buy this, but the arguments he has left may get fewer over time when more about the development of consciousness is known.

It definitely is not mere opinion. It has a noticeable effect on the world we live in because it is broadly shared opinion.

So, what would you say to someone who rejected the values of the Declaration? How would you persuade them that they were good values? Saying, 'It's a broadly shared opinion' would convince no-one. Moral relativism provides no good reason for people to follow society's beliefs.

See above. But what would you say? Do you really think that it suffices to say that you have decided that the DOHR is absolute?

[CoolBoy]

The Omnissiunt One:

I have never come across this argument against theism before. However, I think it is a very strong argument.

[The Omnissiunt One]

You're falsely assuming that a moral statement (an ought) can be made into a factual statement (an is). So now you are deriving an IS from an OUGHT. To make a case for a moral statement it is not necessary to be able to state it as fact. The thing that is needed is a sufficiently strong rationale that explains how a certain act affects the balance between beneficial consequences and detrimental consequences and a norm that is accompanying it. This rationale can be argued for if it is informed rationale. That is, empirical facts undergird the rationale. For instance if it is known from medical experiment that HIV cannot be transferred through normal contact, normal contact with HIV-infected people cannot be a reason for different treatment (discrimination) of HIV-infected. Also, it is not true that factualness of a moral statement, should it exist, ensures that no-one can disagree with it. You would need th rationale just the same.

Ah, so morality isn't just what society believes, but has an underlying utilitarian justification. Okay, that's fine, we're in agreement. I'm not sure when I derived an 'is' from an 'ought', though.

The relativeness of morals is the thing that makes it possible that morals can evolve in the first place. If moral is absolute there is no room for improvement because that would mean that the moral absolute of yesterday is thrown out of the window tomorrow, which is silly when we want to adhere any meaning to the "absolute" predicate. So the relativeness of morals is what made the coming into being of the DOHR possible. There was room to improve and there will be in the future because we become better informed about consequences of actions and how that affect the rationale.

You confused me by referring to your view as 'moral relativism', which is generally the view that morality is relative to society's view. It seems your view would be better described as moral consequentialism, the view that morality is judged by an action's consequences. This seems like a very sensible approach to me.

As I've explained above meaning is created through a rationale about consequences of actions for a chosen (relative) goal. Just as an example:

Moral statement: abortion is allowed in the first month following conception
Rationale: the fetus has no conscious awareness in the first month following conception
Norm: no harm will be done to any conscious unborn child

Please observe that this all is relative. A traditional christian won't buy this, but the arguments he has left may get fewer over time when more about the development of consciousness is known.

Relative to the situation, yes. Not to anything else, like society's opinion.

See above. But what would you say? Do you really think that it suffices to say that you have decided that the DOHR is absolute?

I haven't decided that it's absolute. You've misunderstood my position. To me, the DOHR is a useful legal document, but seems a fairly arbitrary way of deciding who has what right. Weighing up the balance of harm and benefit is a much better method.

---

The Omnissiunt One:

I have never come across this argument against theism before. However, I think it is a very strong argument.

Yeah, it's pretty devastating to theistic morality, I think.

[rjh4 is back]

For the Bible to be taken seriously as a moral guide, it should have explicitly condemned slavery, otherwise it is no moral guide at all.

This is an interesting claim.

Is this merely your opinion or do you rely on some objective standard of morality that leads you to this conclusion? If the latter, what is that objective standard? (I have somewhat been following your conversation with PR and I think you have alluded to some objective standard but I did not read anything where you explained what it was. Maybe I missed something. If so, could you please at least point me to your explanation?) If the former, doesn't that throw you back into moral relativism which you seem to reject?

[Purple Rabbit]

Ah, so morality isn't just what society believes, but has an underlying utilitarian justification.

At some point the underlying justification is what society "believes", it's relative just the same.

You confused me by referring to your view as 'moral relativism', which is generally the view that morality is relative to society's view. It seems your view would be better described as moral consequentialism, the view that morality is judged by an action's consequences. This seems like a very sensible approach to me.

The view I described is a moral relativism because its acceptance still depends on shared opinion.

Relative to the situation, yes. Not to anything else, like society's opinion.

Of course it is dependent on society's opinion, the shared opinion whether the rationale is valid or not. If it was not dependent on society's opinion, every society would have the same rationale which is not the case.