On theism, why do humans have moral duties even if there are objective moral values?

[Pnerd]

I'm not asking about worshipping; I'm asking why theists believe they have a moral duty towards other humans (I agree that was not made clear in my question). And secondly, the last part of my question was "other than for a selfish interest in going to heaven or avoiding hell". Your answer seems to be about god's reward and punishment as a motivation for theists to do good. By the way, why is worshipping god = good according to a theist (other than divine reward/punishment)?

You need to realize that man (humans) made god(s), therefore any requirement for worship (which is group manipulation) and corresponding following of commands (control) were also requirements conceived by man (humans). At one time in history (even current history) this was used as a way to control and manipulates groups/societies. The man made concept of heaven was the carrot, hell the stick, repentance a loop hole that let a person get back the carrot.

So it's actually the humans that conceived of the 'morals' that they wanted implemented in their society, again, for control and manipulation. One could argue that it, for the most part, was for the societies benefit (but not always, especially on an individual level). As an inducement to follow the morals they invented/created a god(s) that would provide/enforce the ultimate reward and/or punishment.

I do realize that. That's the secular non-theistic view. That wasn't my question at all. I asked why humans have moral duties towards others from a theistic perspective (apart from the reward/punishment thing). I wanted to know why a theist might think that they have moral duties and obligations. One obvious reason is the hope of receiving a reward or avoiding punishment. I wondered if there are any other reasons and what they might be.

Also, don't you think most humans are self serving? It is the same for most living creatures. Their 'moral duty' typically stops when the 'self' is threatened.

My point was not to pass a value judgement on self-interest. I was asking whether there are reasons other than self-interest for believing (from a theistic perspective) that humans have moral duties and obligations towards others.
.

[brewer]

You need to realize that man (humans) made god(s), therefore any requirement for worship (which is group manipulation) and corresponding following of commands (control) were also requirements conceived by man (humans). At one time in history (even current history) this was used as a way to control and manipulates groups/societies. The man made concept of heaven was the carrot, hell the stick, repentance a loop hole that let a person get back the carrot.

So it's actually the humans that conceived of the 'morals' that they wanted implemented in their society, again, for control and manipulation. One could argue that it, for the most part, was for the societies benefit (but not always, especially on an individual level). As an inducement to follow the morals they invented/created a god(s) that would provide/enforce the ultimate reward and/or punishment.

I do realize that. That's the secular non-theistic view. That wasn't my question at all. I asked why humans have moral duties towards others from a theistic perspective (apart from the reward/punishment thing). I wanted to know why a theist might think that they have moral duties and obligations. One obvious reason is the hope of receiving a reward or avoiding punishment. I wondered if there are any other reasons and what they might be.

Also, don't you think most humans are self serving? It is the same for most living creatures. Their 'moral duty' typically stops when the 'self' is threatened.

My point was not to pass a value judgement on self-interest. I was asking whether there are reasons other than self-interest for believing (from a theistic perspective) that humans have moral duties and obligations towards others.

The answer is easy, indoctrination. If you want to part of the theistic group, which provides more protections, then you are required to believe. The group belief makes it easier to protect the self interest. The moral duties in a theist society help sustain/maintain self interest, mentally/physically/financially.

[The Grand Nudger]

My point was not to pass a value judgement on self-interest. I was asking whether there are reasons other than self-interest for believing (from a theistic perspective) that humans have moral duties and obligations towards others.
.

As I keep trying to explain......the bold indicates that your question is malformed.  

Asserting objective moral duties and obligations towards others can only be done one way, which has nothing to do with gods or god beliefs...at all.  A theist is as free to assert (or reject) such duties and obligations as an atheist.  Are you unclear as to why a person would believe as much?  Can you personally think of any reason why we would have moral duties and obligations towards others that satisfy the criteria of objectivity?  

If so, congratulations - that's one example that any theist might also refer to as reason to think we do. 

If not, congratulations - a theist might have all of the same reasons to be skeptical.

There is no "specific to perspective x" in moral objectivity. Not mine, not yours, not a theist's, not a god's, not the housecat's. If the existence of moral values and moral duties are dependent on individual perspectives...that's moral subjectivity. If the existence of moral values and moral duties are dependent on some identifiable group's perspective...that's moral relativity. The thing you keep referring to as an obvious reason to assert objective moral values or duties - reward seeking and pain avoidance, is explicitly subjective. What you find rewarding, I may not. What you find painful, I may not. A religion whose adherents do what they do to seek reward rather than to seek good, to avoid pain rather than avoid bad, is explicitly relativist. The rewarding may not be the good, the good may in fact be painful.

[Pnerd]

My point was not to pass a value judgement on self-interest. I was asking whether there are reasons other than self-interest for believing (from a theistic perspective) that humans have moral duties and obligations towards others.
.

As I keep trying to explain......the bold indicates that your question is malformed.  

Asserting objective moral duties and obligations towards others can only be done one way, which has nothing to do with gods or god beliefs...at all.  A theist is as free to assert (or reject) such duties and obligations as an atheist.  Are you unclear as to why a person would believe as much?  Can you personally think of any reason why we would have moral duties and obligations towards others that satisfy the criteria of objectivity?  

Of course, I can. My reasons are non-theistic reasons. But as I mentioned in my first post, my reason for asking the question was William Lane Craig's claims regarding his moral argument. He claims that humans have moral duties and obligations. He also claims that from an atheistic viewpoint, there is no way to have objective moral values. That got me wondering why a theist like Craig might think humans have moral duties from his theistic perspective which is not available to an atheist. If a theist's view on moral duties is no different from an atheist's, then Craig's claim (that objective morality is possible only from a theistic perspective) is wrong, which was my point. Surely, someone with Craig's beliefs doesn't believe that the motivation for behaving morally is the same for a theist and an atheist. I'm wondering where a theist like Craig believes his moral obligations come from.

[The Grand Nudger]

William Lane Craig is a professional liar. Mystery solved/

I don't know where immoral people get their morals from...but I strongly suspect that the answer is "nowhere".....as they have none?

But that doesn't actually touch on the question you asked. You're sure there must be some other thing....but there isn't. William Lane Craig's objective moral duties come from the same place mine do, if either of us have them. There's only one place objective moral duties can come from....and it has nothing to do with whether or not gods exist.

Why do you think that it does? Why do you think there's a moral difference between WLC...objectively, and myself..or yourself......based on perspective?

[Pnerd]

You're sure there must be some other thing....

Not at all.

Why do you think that it does?  Why do you think there's a moral difference between WLC...objectively, and myself..or yourself......based on perspective?

I don't (because of my non-theistic perspective), of course. I was wondering what reasoning a theist like Craig would give for objective moral duties that he claims are not available to an atheist like me.
.

[highdimensionman]

I was listening to William Lane Craig's moral argument. Even if we grant him that God exists and objective morality exists and god is the basis of objective morality, why do humans have moral duties? Why do we have to be good and do good other than for a selfish interest in going to heaven? He just claims that we do have moral duties (just like he claims by fiat that objective moral values exist). But why, on theism, do humans have a moral duty to be good?

Well if your too greedy without enough care it can spoil the situation for others who will move you out the way or tear jerk you into caring. Plundering to a high degree should eventually be illegal for a healthy planet which boils down to how much humanity does and doesn't care and of course what's actually achievable at that moment in time. Fact is no boogie man in the sky is going to really help you achieve a positive way forward we as people have to find our way ourselves and always keep in mind the road to hell is paved with good intention and I'm not talking about inside a volcano i'm talking like somewhere shit to live on. Theologically a limited list of outdated moral obligations are considered good to keep you in favour with god. Why something supposedly super natural would care so much about such trivial things has got to be the biggest contradiction or just the most boring dull deity bully out there.

[The Grand Nudger]

In short, he's contended that life without a god would be ultimately meaningless - employing a novel idea of ultimate meaning roughly translating to...god. Life without god would be godless. He's been pretty clear in what compels him to assert as much. The specter of death and his inability to cope with it. We die, worlds can die, the universe may even die. If we're all going to die and that's just that - what's the moral significance of shuffling off a few of our fellow mans mortal coils a little ahead of schedule?

Laying right on the surface of all of this is an interesting, if implicit, admission. That it's the asserted necessity or utility of some great narrative...not it's factual accuracy...that allows human beings to function in this apparent void. Gods are an antidote to nihilism. Quixotically, one that insists that nihilism is true, that meaning is nowhere to be found in life ,but..instead, is produced by some agent.

It backfired hilariously in a debate with shelly kagan once. Like kagan, I'm perfectly happy to concede that my life has no god-meaning and that I will one day die, but that doesn't change my moral appraisal of murder.