[split] Theistic VS Naturalistic morality

[theVOID]

I don't think punishment is evil at all so I don't suffer this conundrum, we use both condemnation and praise to shape society, we as a collective praise the actions we deem to be good and condemn those that don't, where reward and accolade are the high end of praise, punishment is the high end of condemnation - this is the foundation for moral judgement, as such it cannot be judged in terms of morality because in order to judge punishment as being immoral, you need to use condemnation, and punishment is a form of condemnation.

[Edwardo Piet]

Punishment may indeed be better than no punishment as an effective method against a criminal. But surely no crime in the first place would have been ideal? Punishment still isn't a pleasant thing presuming 'desert' and 'free will' are fiction.

Condemning at times may be the best option. But surely it can never be ideal. Condemnation never having to be used in the first place is ideal.

I judge punishment as an evil because it causes suffering. It is of course a necessary evil though when it does more good than harm by being a deterrent. It's an effective means of discouraging a criminal's further offence and it also dissuades people from committing an offence in the first place.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Therefore punishment is unpleasant (i.e. causes suffering) whether or not free will exists. It may be less justifiable if free will doesn't exist, but it's still necessary, if punishment does act as a deterrent.

[fr0d0]

1. We already covered the proposition VOID.

And I reject the presupposition. Morality can be rational and unjust, the utilitarian moral theories all have a rational morality that is not contingent upon ultimate justice.

Of course you reject real morality... you can't embrace it for the reason demonstrated here... ie: that there cannot be one without God.

I was referring to Kant's own comments on his argument, it only requires that there is justice bought to the universe in a life after this one, it does not necessitate that a God is the being who brings the justice.

That's splitting hairs. Yeah sure other supernatural executors of justice produce the same effect. So what?

4. This in no way removes responsibility in this life. That's a bare accusation with no link here.

Sorry, I meant to be more clear. It removes the necessity for justice in this life. That being, if one wants justice then justice must necessarily be dealt in this life and any justice that is not issued is justice failed.

Justice is failed mostly. We don't have the knowledge to be absolutely just as a supernatural entity would, and therefore justice is rarely served. And for the purpose of Kant's model, we have no rational purpose to be moral in the highest form of morality. We're moral to a limited extent where humans profit over justice.

[theVOID]

Of course you reject real morality... you can't embrace it for the reason demonstrated here... ie: that there cannot be one without God.

1. 'Real morality' or as I assume you mean 'moral realism' is possible without God in a number of ways.

Moral realism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:
Ethical sentences express propositions.
Some such propositions are true.
Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion.

There are plenty of naturalistic theories of moral realism. Desirism and Preference Utilitarianism are two to name a small fraction.

Oh, and your "there cannot be one without God" contradicts what you said below.

That's splitting hairs. Yeah sure other supernatural executors of justice produce the same effect. So what?

[fr0d0]

Sure there are lower standards VOID. That's accepted.

Only lower standards don't make Kants model work. Only perfect morals do that.


That doesn't contradict what I said - Kant specifies a God or equal force acting upon an afterlife.

[Edwardo Piet]

Therefore punishment is unpleasant (i.e. causes suffering) whether or not free will exists. It may be less justifiable if free will doesn't exist, but it's still necessary, if punishment does act as a deterrent.

Yes but if Free Will exists then 'Desert' makes sense. If it doesn't it doesn't.

And if 'Desert' makes sense then that means doing extra punishing. So to apply this to a world without free will is extra injustice.

[theVOID]

Sure there are lower standards VOID. That's accepted.

Only lower standards don't make Kants model work. Only perfect morals do that.

That doesn't contradict what I said - Kant specifies a God or equal force acting upon an afterlife.

Firstly, Kant's model is a non-sequitur for god, it also lies on a false premise (his relationship between rationality and justice).

Secondly, There is nothing at all about lower standards, if you think there is you have no understanding of the moral arguments, even Kant knew that there was no difference in applied morality between believers and the non-believers, like he addressed in regard to many of his non-believing colleagues.

The question to be addresses is "where does morality come from" not "what's the best possible situation we could imagine for a moral system". We have no reason to believe that a God exists, so no reason to assume that the moral system implied by his existence exists either. That rules out two options 1) Divine command theory and 2) Diving attitude theory.

There is nothing intrinsically more valuable about behaving morally in either theistic or naturalistic systems, the same criteria still face us and we still make the same decisions based on the same moral conditioning (praise and condemnation shown to people who behave in ways 'considered' to be immoral). The only thing that is different is where morality comes from. I believe it is the relationships between the desires of all persons involved. A person with good desires will act in a way that tends to promote more desires than they thwart. A good person would not approve of slavery, for example, because they have a desire not to be enslaved or to see their loved ones be enslaved, and so does everyone else therefore there are more and stronger desires not to be enslaved than there are to enslave someone else, and the position that promotes more desires while thwarting the least number is the moral choice.

The relationship between desires and the state of affairs is an objective measurement, in the same meaning of the sense that, as commonly accepted as being objective in philosophy, it is not based on the subjective understanding of one or more persons, but it is a factual statement about the state this system is in.

This objective naturalistic morality is more than sufficient for me, it requires no unfounded assumptions, fits the general way we talk about morality, and delivers more conclusions

What matters not what you want morality to be, it matters what it actually is. If you need to suppose that everything is just going to work out okay in the end because God is going to bring ultimate justice then that's up to you, but I would rather deal with reality as it known to be.

[fr0d0]

Your reality is morality based on injustice, which isn't really worth much. "Life is unfair... live with it".
It's rational to you to be unjust and your world is a poor place. Morality worth a bean is only rational should justice be meted. This life is worth so much more assuming God (or something the same as God ...dur) and this is solid, undeniable proof of that.

You're clutching at straws in trying to move to different aspects of morality. I'm not fooled. "Where does morality come from"? Our rationalisation for our actions.

Prove to me how morality and justice aren't connected.

"Moral behaviour, Kant is adamant, is rational behaviour; we have good reason to be moral. This is a fundamental principle of morality: if you ought to do something then you have a reason to do it. It makes no sense to say “I see that I ought to give money to charity, but I have no reason to.” If we ought to do something then that is a reason to do it. What is more, a moral reason is always a stronger reason for doing something than any other reason. If we have a moral reason to do a thing, and another reason not to do it, then rationally speaking we ought to do it. Moral behaviour is always rational."

This isn't rational if you assume no God and no justice, I agree. But that isn't the point here. The point here is how this morality works being based on justice. Yeah to you it's nonsense, purely because you lose before you start.

How does it help someone without a faith in justice in an afterlife? Not at all. You deny how a person's decisions would be altered. I've got to tell you... a person of faith looks at decisions completely differently. It's quite straightforwardly laid out here and I can't see how you can't see that. I know you don't want to, and it proves to be a tangible loss for your world view, but it's a clear fact.

For me, divinely inspired morality actually is rational and quite superior to naturalistic morality. The whole thrust of my faith is for a reason which is superior to the reasoning without it. That's why I do it. It makes sense. In the real world, here, now, my actual moral system is the best it can be.

[theVOID]

Your reality is morality based on injustice, which isn't really worth much. "Life is unfair... live with it".
It's rational to you to be unjust and your world is a poor place. Morality worth a bean is only rational should justice be meted. This life is worth so much more assuming God (or something the same as God ...dur) and this is solid, undeniable proof of that.

That's bullshit fr0d0, my morality is not based on injustice at all, it is based on the relationships between desires and as such a moral action is one that promotes more desires than it thwarts. There is nothing unjust about this in any way. Morality is not about attaining ultimate justice for all action, it is about promoting good actions and condemning bad actions in order to create a better life.

Life is unfair, so what? This is a reality that needs to be accounted for. There is nothing admirable about ignoring it or passing it off to some imaginary entity.

Life becomes no more valuable 'assuming' anything, the values that exist are independent of our assumptions about life and the events that take place in it. We experience the same reality and have the same applied morality regardless of what assumptions we make, Kant was quick to acknowledge that, as are most theistic ethicists.

You're clutching at straws in trying to move to different aspects of morality. I'm not fooled. "Where does morality come from"? Our rationalisation for our actions.

You've just demonstrated once again that you don't have the fuzziest clue about the debates in ethics. Nobody defends the idea that morality is a simple rationalisation for action, morality is a standard by which our actions are judged.

Prove to me how morality and justice aren't connected.

Easy. It is immoral to rape a child even if justice will never be done. What does justice add to it? Absolutely nothing. We would all like justice to be done in all circumstances, but that simply isn't the case. We have our ideals of justice and use this justice and the punishment it will bring as a deterrent, but justice being done is not necessary for a decision to be considered moral or immoral.

"Moral behaviour, Kant is adamant, is rational behaviour; we have good reason to be moral. This is a fundamental principle of morality: if you ought to do something then you have a reason to do it. It makes no sense to say “I see that I ought to give money to charity, but I have no reason to.” If we ought to do something then that is a reason to do it. What is more, a moral reason is always a stronger reason for doing something than any other reason. If we have a moral reason to do a thing, and another reason not to do it, then rationally speaking we ought to do it. Moral behaviour is always rational."

I agree with that part entirely, what I disagree with is the idea that morality can only be rational if justice is done. Morality is a standard by which action is assessed, an action is deemed to be moral or immoral based on a moral theory. If morality is divine command then whatever god commands is whatever morality is, if morality is the relationship between desires and a state of affairs then morality is the assessment of action based on this standard. Justice is desired in both but only absolute in the former.

This isn't rational if you assume no God and no justice, I agree. But that isn't the point here. The point here is how this morality works being based on justice. Yeah to you it's nonsense, purely because you lose before you start.

Morality is NOT contingent upon justice. Justice is DESIRED not REQUIRED.

How does it help someone without a faith in justice in an afterlife? Not at all. You deny how a person's decisions would be altered. I've got to tell you... a person of faith looks at decisions completely differently. It's quite straightforwardly laid out here and I can't see how you can't see that. I know you don't want to, and it proves to be a tangible loss for your world view, but it's a clear fact.

Yes, you fear the judgement of one more entity than i do, that doesn't in any way change the content of moral decisions. I may conclude differently than you upon certain issues, though i don't know of anything that you would consider immoral that i would not (except for blasphemy perhaps), and vice verse, but in any other case our moral conclusions remain the same.

You may think that rape is wrong because God would condemn it, or because it's not in his nature where i consider it wrong because it thwarts more and stronger desires than it promotes, but the conclusion is the same.

For me, divinely inspired morality actually is rational and quite superior to naturalistic morality. The whole thrust of my faith is for a reason which is superior to the reasoning without it. That's why I do it. It makes sense. In the real world, here, now, my actual moral system is the best it can be.

You have yet to demonstrate that you are more moral in practice. Kant would slap you in the face for the assertion, it was something he was very explicit about. His objection was not at all to the moral standards of the non-believer, but the idea that these moral standards could arise without the divine. Yet we have non-theistic objective morality that is fully consistent with our moral feelings and conclusions none the less. God is not required to establish the truth of moral propositions.

You really need to do some basic reading on meta-ethics, you seem to have no understanding of all what the debate actually is.