My views on objective morality

[LadyForCamus]

MK, I believe the expression you are looking for is "circular logic."  And yes, this does seem to be a case of circular logic.

Double implications exist.

A -> B
B -> A
Therefore A <->B. 

It's not circular reasoning. It's that both imply one another.

If there existed a child, there existed a parent.
If there existed a parent, there existed a child.

That's a double implication in the definition of child and parent.

The same can be true of morality because of it's relationship to God as the source.

Okay so...if there exists objective morals, then there exists a god.

If there exists a god, then there exists objective morals.

I don't see how this is supposed to demonstrate that either God or objective morals actually exist...*scratches head*

[Mr.wizard]

MK, I believe the expression you are looking for is "circular logic."  And yes, this does seem to be a case of circular logic.

Double implications exist.

A -> B
B -> A
Therefore A <->B. 

It's not circular reasoning. It's that both imply one another.

If there existed a child, there existed a parent.
If there existed a parent, there existed a child.

That's a double implication in the definition of child and parent.

The same can be true of morality because of it's relationship to God as the source.

It's circular reasoning because your premise does not provide independent evidence for your conclusion. You must already believe your conclusion of god existing and being the source of morality, in order for your premise that objective morality exists and comes from  god, to be true.

[Mr.wizard]

Perhaps it would be better to define "morality", so that we can work from there, huh?

To me, morality is just a collection of behaviors that humans have with each other so that the overall society can prosper and minimize suffering - be it physical or psychological. It also includes behaviors which, if undertaken, would lead to the opposite - a society that does not prosper nor minimizes suffering - and as such are to be avoided.

Given such a human-centric nature of morality, I cannot fathom it having any relation to a god.

I've been wanting to reply to this issue in the other thread. Glad you brought it up here again.

Maybe you could answer my very simple question? How do you recognize object morality?

[Mystic]

Double implications exist.

A -> B
B -> A
Therefore A <->B. 

It's not circular reasoning. It's that both imply one another.

If there existed a child, there existed a parent.
If there existed a parent, there existed a child.

That's a double implication in the definition of child and parent.

The same can be true of morality because of it's relationship to God as the source.

Okay so...if there exists objective morals, then there exists a god.

If there exists a god, then there exists objective morals.

I don't see how this is supposed to demonstrate that either God or objective morals actually exist...*scratches head*

It may or may not depending on your taste. As I've explained before in the past, the very knowledge that morality if objective (I use this differently the definition used by philosophers) is linked to God, shows we know a vital characteristic of it. Being certain in this knowledge, shows we know to be true due to the nature of (objective) morality and it's link to God. This should make us believe in both, because, we know something of certain about both that it is not really possible without some sort of link and connection to both of these as a reality.

It doesn't make sense that it's figment of our imagination, and that this thing we imagine has a necessary characteristic that it must be connected to an eternal absolute moral being.

[Mystic]

I've been wanting to reply to this issue in the other thread. Glad you brought it up here again.

Maybe you could answer my very simple question? How do you recognize object morality?

See post 860: post 860

[robvalue]

I don't know what on earth you think morality is MK, so I can't comment.

[bennyboy]

Double implications exist.

A -> B
B -> A
Therefore A <->B. 

It's not circular reasoning. It's that both imply one another.

If there existed a child, there existed a parent.
If there existed a parent, there existed a child.

That's a double implication in the definition of child and parent.

The same can be true of morality because of it's relationship to God as the source.

Where do you get this stuff?

child <-> parent isn't an implication or a mutually supporting idea. It's a definition of those terms. "Parent" means "someone with a child" and "child" means "someone with a parent."

If you define morality as "whatever God wants us to do," then God, if real, proves the existence of morals. But that would be a poor definition of morality.
If you define God as "whoever/whatever made morals possible," then morals, if real, prove the existence of God. But that would be a poor definition of God.

[robvalue]

And none of this tells us what morality is meant to do, even if any of it was true.

I know how to be a "good" person. If god wants me to behave in anything less than what I consider to be a "good" way, he can get lost.

If he, or anyone else, wants to present a reasoned argument as to why I should alter my behaviour, then I'm always happy to consider it. But people telling me what god apparently wants me to do is of no relevance to me.

[Mr.wizard]

Maybe you could answer my very simple question? How do you recognize object morality?

See post 860: post 860

I don't see an answer in there.

[Mystic]

Double implications exist.

A -> B
B -> A
Therefore A <->B. 

It's not circular reasoning. It's that both imply one another.

If there existed a child, there existed a parent.
If there existed a parent, there existed a child.

That's a double implication in the definition of child and parent.

The same can be true of morality because of it's relationship to God as the source.

Where do you get this stuff?

child <-> parent isn't an implication or a mutually supporting idea.  It's a definition of those terms.  "Parent" means "someone with a child" and "child" means "someone with a parent."

If you define morality as "whatever God wants us to do," then God, if real, proves the existence of morals.  But that would be a poor definition of morality.
If you define God as "whoever/whatever made morals possible," then morals, if real, prove the existence of God.  But that would be a poor definition of God.

This is the thing. How do we define God? God means a being Worthy of Worship. This includes moral excellence, not just being ultra powerful.

Also, the link between the will of the heavens with of the earth, with morality seems to be quite common in cultures in how they defined morality.

Part of the definition of God is whoever/whatever made morals possible or the only being which morals are possible through. It's not a poor part of the description of God and in fact also points to the totality of his names and aspects, and is one of God's all-beautiful names.