Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God.

[Belacqua]

Morality is a value judgement and is automatically subjective (or, in the case of a community, intersubjective).

Do you have an argument by which you demonstrate the above? I'd be interested to hear it. Or is it just something that seems self-evident to you? 

As for the god of the Bible, if it actually did exist and had deliberately created a place for sentient beings to be tormented for eternity, that one action would make it a being of infinite evil.  No amount of good intentions or "holiness" can wave that away.

If someone were to claim that if the God of the Bible isn't real then morality must just be subjective, that would be a false dichotomy. There are systems of virtue ethics and moral realism which argue for objective morality without any reference to a God. 

I'm no expert in these systems, but I'd be interested in hearing your refutations of them.

[Belacqua]

every society has its morality, but each is different. What is deemed good in one society is often deemed bad in another; for instance, killing is immoral in most societies (under most but not all circumstances), but head-hunting is or was a valuable and appropriate behavior in some societies. In other words, morality is not absolute or universal, despite what you think, but relative.

If the majority of people in a society think slavery is OK, then is slavery moral in that time and place? 

Or is slavery always wrong, in your view?

[Peebothuhlu]

IF 'Morals' are an emergent property, then the whole 'Is/Ought' thing simply goes out the window. No need for it.

Morals become similar to chemistry. Morals 'Just are'.

Tell me, good Nishant Xavier, do you 'Choose' to be conscious?

Again, you're confusing the 'Thing' for its attributes.

A car is a 'Thing'. How fast it goes is an emergent property.

'Water' is a 'Thing'. How 'Wet' it is, is an emergent property.

Similarly, an/a Hominid is a 'Thing'. How moral it is is an emergent property.

Cheers.

Emergent properties are real. 

For example, if we agree that consciousness is an emergent property of brain activity, that doesn't mean that consciousness doesn't really exist. It does. 

Therefore, even if morality is an emergent property, it may still be a real thing. Not some sort of illusion.

The car is a thing. How fast it goes may be an emergent property. Standing in front of the car while it's going fast will teach you that the speed has real-world effects.

Hello Bell.

Thank you for supporting my post(s).

You're pretty much agreeing with my ideas. Thanks and cheers.

[Foxaèr]

Slavery is always wrong. It's part of a theistic equation whereby believers are delusional about god's goodness.

[Belacqua]

Slavery is always wrong.

Good. So at least some moral tenets are not subjective.

[Fake Messiah]

every society has its morality, but each is different. What is deemed good in one society is often deemed bad in another; for instance, killing is immoral in most societies (under most but not all circumstances), but head-hunting is or was a valuable and appropriate behavior in some societies. In other words, morality is not absolute or universal, despite what you think, but relative.

If the majority of people in a society think slavery is OK, then is slavery moral in that time and place? 

Or is slavery always wrong, in your view?

As I explained many times, from humanistic perspective slavery is bad because a humanistic perspective is based on individual human feelings, and we know that slaves suffer. In Christian societies, the individual is not important, so that is why slavery was often acceptable (and many Christian apologists want it to come back) as is not allowing women to be educated, tolerance of other religions is not allowed, etc.

But there is no objective way for me to say that slavery is bad. I can only appeal to logic and humanistic appeals, which can easily be dismissed by a theistic mentality.

[Belacqua]

Thank you for supporting my post(s).

You're pretty much agreeing with my ideas. Thanks and cheers.

OK, that's interesting. 

Is it fair to state it this way:

1) Morals are emergent properties from the actions of physical systems. 

2) Emergent properties are real and not simply subjective judgments. 

3) Therefore, Morals are not subjective judgments, but real effects of physical systems. 

I wouldn't have phrased it this way before, but this seems fairly close to Aristotelian Virtue Ethics. (And its many variations over the years.) He claims that human beings have certain characteristics which make them human, and which are common to all humans. You might express this sort of like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which is a lot later than Aristotle, but claims to be true of human nature, and not merely a subjective choice or societal trend. A person who is flourishing is attaining a high level of this Hierarchy of Needs, and someone who prevents you from flourishing is immoral.

So for example, someone who chops the arms off of healthy babies for fun is immoral because he is harming the flourishing (an emergent property) of that baby.

In short, we can say that because people are a certain way, we can determine with some degree of specificity (not too much) what it is for people to flourish. The emergent properties which constitute flourishing are not something that varies from society to society, but from species to species. (Cat flourishing is not the same as human flourishing.) So although there is a lot of wiggle room for individual variation, in general morality is determined by the kind of animals we are, and is not something that can change, as long as we continue to be this kind of animal.

[Belacqua]

If the majority of people in a society think slavery is OK, then is slavery moral in that time and place? 

Or is slavery always wrong, in your view?

As I explained many times, from humanistic perspective slavery is bad because a humanistic perspective is based on individual human feelings, and we know that slaves suffer. In Christian societies, the individual is not important, so that is why slavery was often acceptable (and many Christian apologists want it to come back) as is not allowing women to be educated, tolerance of other religions is not allowed, etc.

But there is no objective way for me to say that slavery is bad. I can only appeal to logic and humanistic appeals, which can easily be dismissed by a theistic mentality.

OK, so for you, if a society is Bible-based, then slavery is not immoral in that society. But it is in the kind of society you approve of.

[Foxaèr]

Objectivity is the trapping pit of theistic unreality.

[Deesse23]

Here is what an Agnostic/Darwinian Philosopher thinks Morality is:

Like many christians you are falsely linking disbelief in your god to evolution/Darwinism. Its wrong and telling....about you.
Disbelief has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Astreja said: "For one thing, I believe that "objective morality" is an oxymoron.  Morality is a value judgement and is automatically subjective (or, in the case of a community, intersubjective)."

In other words, it is an objective Truth that: "murder, rape, theft etc are intrinsically and objectively evil/wrong". It is not a mere subjective opinion but an objective fact and its Truth has nothing to do with the subjective opinions of the person committing the action.

Is it a fact, or just your gods opinion that murder is not ok? Is it a fact or just your gods opinion that murdering the Amalekites was ok?
If its an objective truth that murder is immoral, was it moral or immoral of your god to command genocide on the Amalekites?
If you just answered that murder is not ok....well, that its ok as long as your god commands is...are you then a moral objectivist or relativist?

Deep down, hardly anyone can maintain subjective morality consistently, which is another proof that awareness of the objectively moral law is innate.

bare assertion and wrong.

Peebothuhlu said: "'Morals' might simply be an emergent property of reality. Much like biology is an outgrowth of chemistry and neurons are an outgrowth of biology."


There is an ethical dilemma called "the is-ought dilemma". Not posting here as I'm not allowed to give links yet. Basically, facts about chemistry and biology etc just "are", i.e. they come under the "is" part. Biology doesn't tell you how you ought to behave; neither does chemistry; for that, you need morality. That's it in a nutshell, though I'm simplifying a little. Basically, biological or other natural physical facts about how such and such things are cannot by themselves serves as guides with reference to moral obligations, which could only come from something like Conscience or innate moral awareness, "ought", not "is".

Bolding mine: Bare assertion again
You assert that objecive moral values exist and that they obviously cant come from nature, thus god.
Thats fallacious in more than one way, starting with your unsupported assertion that objective moral values exist. Please demonstrate they do! That you believe so deep down in your consciousness...that itsnt such a demonstration

The fact alone of God's existence can also be established in other ways, like the Principle of Contingent Causation mentioned on another thread.

Wrong again

Alexander Hamilton said: "Good and wise men, in all ages have supposed that the Deity, from the relations we stand in to Himself, and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable Law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatsoever. This is what is called the Law of Nature.

Being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, it is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original [Law]."

Noone cares about what Hamilton said, until you can demonstrate he was correct. Was he? Can you?