Relative Morality

[FadingW]

It is claimed that secular society denigrates objective morality while espousing an idea of relative morality where there is no overriding moral standard.

However, curiously, christianity itself may rely on relative morality.

If it is immoral for a people to go into a foreign land, conduct genocide on it's inhabitants, confiscate their property, rape their women ... is it moral if 'god' commands it?

To say that 'god' is the ultimate moral standard, and thus is always right, makes no more sense than picking any arbitrary being to be an ultimate moral standard.

Moreover, if it is claimed that moral right is defined by 'god' because he is 'god', then this is not different than Right By Might, an utterly detestable view in my opinion.

Can we say that an objective morality can be found in human empathy, to not do towards others that which we ourselves would find harmful?

[DeistPaladin]

Morality is a complex issue and no theory that I've studied successfully defines it in all situations. The closest is Bentham's Utilitarianism and even this has its problems.

That said, throwing God into the equation is neither necessary nor helpful to understand morality. I call it saying "GodWillsIt" since it's no more satisfactory an explanation for moral problems than "GodDidIt" is a satisfying explanation for scientific problems. "GodDidIt" tells us nothing about the how or why just as "GodWillsIt" tells us nothing about how or why something is right or wrong.

If we say "God is good", what do we mean? If God is good because God understands the correct moral action and conforms to this, than it means morality exists outside of and independent to God. God is conforming to moral behavior in this example, so morality exists independent of God. Ergo, though we may lack the wisdom, we too might be able to act morally and therefore God isn't required.

On the other hand, if God decides what is moral, as a divine lawgiver, than this is not objective morality. This is conformity to the will of another and calling it "moral". One could just as easily say that a human dictator decides what is right and wrong and calling that "morality". This is not objective morality. This is subjective morality as arbitrarily determined by another. Further, statements as "God is good" becomes a tautology, since "good" is "what God wills." Essentially, it becomes "God wills what God wills".

A third option, proposed by Theologica in my YouTube exchange with him, is to say that "God IS morality", essentially a variation on the "God is love" cliche. Unfortunately, this logic is circular because the definition is based on the conclusion. How do you know that God is good? Because God is good. But how do you know that you're correct in saying that God is good? Because God is good. Etc. Ad neuseum. That Theologica broke down by the end of our exchange and actually lied about what the Bible says demonstrates how a belief in God is no guarantee of moral behavior.

Of course, if we're talking about the Biblical-Koranic god, Yahweh-Allah, any way you slice this, it's easy identified as baloney once you crack open these books and find that their god is unable to satisfactorily grapple with even no-brainer issues like rape and slavery. A truly moral god would have outlawed both practices and yet the Bible is full of both endorsements and regulation of both.

[Captain Scarlet]

I find contractarianism to be a satisfactory starting point, but like all models it is useful but limited in explanatory scope and power.

Traditional arguments for god being the source of morality are blunted by the meta-ethical argument for atheism. The theist escapes only by claiming god is good by definition. But no-one knows what this means and it fails to give any causal mechanism.

[Rwandrall]

"If it is immoral for a people to go into a foreign land, conduct genocide on it's inhabitants, confiscate their property, rape their women ... is it moral if 'god' commands it?"

as much as i think religion is bullshit, not a SINGLE christian out there uses these Old Testament passages as his basis for morality. They got rid of the old Testament, by arguing Jesus' coming made these laws have accomplished their purpose.

They mainly use the New Testament, with the basis being the Catechism of the Catholic Church, written by the infallible ecumenical council. This text, if you read it, is actually pretty ok ! For example, it says people who are not Christian but still actively research a sinless life go to Heaven anyways. I read it, trying to find things to be mad at, and i had a hard time finding any.

Even Islam is pretty alright as a whole, all the problems that come from it, like in the Bible, come from a few easily manipulated passages.

Now about "if God commands it, you can do anything". What about the secular mentality of "if i don't get caught, i can do anything" ? It's true that with no objective standard of ultimate justice, you can do anything you want and only the damage it can cause to yourself is a real deterrent. Look at the mafia, they killed a whole lot of people, ruined a good number of lives, with no religious implication whatsoever. So secular morality is not necessarily better.

[downbeatplumb]

So secular morality is not necessarily better.

I would argue the opposite.

Theologially run countries are all intolerant with punishments far outwaying the crime, girls being stoned to death for being raped etc.

Unrestrained theistic morailty leads to the stagnation and stratification of the society.

Also an atheist cannot say that god/the devil made him do it, any crime is your crime and not the fault of some supernatural puppet master.

[Rwandrall]

So secular morality is not necessarily better.

I would argue the opposite.

Theologially run countries are all intolerant with punishments far outwaying the crime, girls being stoned to death for being raped etc.

Unrestrained theistic morailty leads to the stagnation and stratification of the society.

Also an atheist cannot say that god/the devil made him do it, any crime is your crime and not the fault of some supernatural puppet master.

There is no general rule. The US and the UK are arguably run theologically. The President swears on the Bible, the Queen is head of the Church of England. But they are countries that are some of the richest in the world. And most of Europe follows the Christians values as a whole, so does most of South America.

On the other end, North Korea, or Cuba, or the USSR, or Turkmenistan, or Burma, or Sri Lanka, are countries that NOT run by religious values and end up being some of the worst countries in the world. India follows the Hindu religion and still is one of the fastest-growing countries in the world.

And how often do you see, in the US, someone actually say "the Devil made me do it" ? Pretty much never.