The Moral Argument

[ByFaithAlone]

However, without objective morality, you cannot actually say something is absolutely wrong. You can only say that you "believe" it is wrong. Therefore, from your viewpoint, you only believe the Holocaust is wrong and have no objective reason for believing such and therefore no right to judge. I would humbly submit that you cannot condemn Hitler. Am I correct?

Correct, well as far as I'm concerned. One cannot say something is absolutely wrong. I do not condemn anyone. I don't have perfect knowledge so I wouldn't trust the absoluteness of my opinions of right and wrong.

Glad to see we agree on what a subjective moral system would mean.

I would not condemn Hitler but I/we'd still have to deal with him. We, the people of the US and other nations have some common morality. We can judge his actions as wrong and take steps to stop his actions. I don't need absolutes for that, just consensus. People don't like to accept it but I think the truth is might makes right.

What gives us the right to "judge his actions as wrong and take stepts to stop" them? In your world of subjectivity you come with the solution that a consensus must be reached. However, I do not find this as a valid basis for any form of morality.

You say that a consensus has to be reached in order to form a valid moral position. So if everyone in the US decided that murder was morally ok, then you would agree? Let me remind you that many Germans concurred with Hitler regarding the Jews (as did many other people Hitler conquered). However, I am sure that you would agree Hitler’s actions are not morally right.

Fair enough. Thanks for being honest. If you liked murder, or if someone else liked pedophilia, would that make it morally right in your subjective world? Just food for thought...

Do you favor the death penalty? Some see it as murder and so immoral. In ancient Greek pedophilia was society's norm. Seems kind of obvious that right and wrong are not absolute for everyone.

Seems like this doesn’t really address the questions but rather just asks the same questions of me. As per the death penalty being murder or not. Murder is defined as the unjustified killing of a human being. As justice is defined as giving each person their due, then the death penalty could not be considered murder. Whether it should be practiced or not is an entirely different question. As per the pedophilia issue, again, do societal norms make something right? Again, the Holocaust is a great example.

I deal with the behavior of others. According to a, hopefully, rational understanding and according to my values. Absolutes mean nothing to me if they don't agree with my values.

So your values and understanding should be the basis of morality?

If God came to you and told you that you had to sacrifice your son/daughter to show your faithfulness would you? Or would you risk Hell to save them?

Abraham actually faced this dilemma in the Bible. He knew, and had faith, that his God who is Love, was merely testing his faith and could not be anything else then his essential properties and therefore would not actually demand such a sacrifice. You present a false dilemma to the Christian view of God.

[Nakosis]

I am confused as to how the Euthyphro dilemma shows that these values can exist independtly from God. The Euthyphro dilemma is merely a challenge to the concept of a deity being the basis of morality and remain all powerful.

To those who are unfamiliar or watching this thread. The Euthyphro dilemma questions whether...

(a) Is something morally good because God commands it

or

(b) Does God command what is already morally good

If the first option is chosen, then anything God commads, such as rape, etc. is moral while if the second option is chosen then God is subject to some other set of independent morals.

However, from my perspective the Euthyphro dilemma is a false one. There is a third option. Morals exist because God is. He is the very defining characteristics for what moral is. It is what we call his nature or essential properties. As three possible answers exist the Euthyphro dilemma is a false one.

P.S. Again, I will get back to everyone else ASAP... school work is just bogging me down lol

I agree the Euthyphro dilemma is a false one.

However I see morality as what the individual sees as right and wrong. No reason to think every individual will see right as wrong to be the same.

If God has a morality, lets say to be the standard to judge against. We can't really know it. Any more then you can know my morality or me yours.

People do pick and choose among concepts of right and wrong found in the Bible. Still that is according to their own concept of what is moral. Ignoring, justifying, excusing anything in the Bible that seems to them immoral. It's a fools justification to think that any concept of morality that man comes up with results in an understanding of God's morality by picking and choosing from among passages in the Bible.

However isn't the belief that God will write the law on the heart of the faithful? So do we or do we not trust the morality that we feel? The truth is that we do regardless. Whether it's picking passages from the Bible to support it or deciding how to act on a daily basis.

It really doesn't matter if people think to justify their morals, to some concept of God's moral standard pulled from the Bible, whether it actually is. They will act as if it were.

If God loves the pious then it is because God makes them pious. I don't think that really answer the question of whether there exists a morality independent of God. I think not but I also don't think we should be so certain of our knowledge as to what God's morality is.

[Guest shiloh357]

However I see morality as what the individual sees as right and wrong. No reason to think every individual will see right as wrong to be the same.

Doesn't matter. If the source for humanity is amoral, then humanity should have no since of morality at all, and we should not expect a universe where any type of moral framework exists.

[Nakosis]

What gives us the right to "judge his actions as wrong and take stepts to stop" them? In your world of subjectivity you come with the solution that a consensus must be reached. However, I do not find this as a valid basis for any form of morality.

You say that a consensus has to be reached in order to form a valid moral position. So if everyone in the US decided that murder was morally ok, then you would agree? Let me remind you that many Germans concurred with Hitler regarding the Jews (as did many other people Hitler conquered). However, I am sure that you would agree Hitler’s actions are not morally right.

I'm not saying it is valid, only that it is a moral position. Many in the US have decided that murder in the form of capital punishment is moral. They've passed laws to support it. I don't agree with it. My personal morality may differ from that of the majority. That's why I see personal and civil morality as really separate. Sometimes though they happen to agree.

Seems like this doesn’t really address the questions but rather just asks the same questions of me. As per the death penalty being murder or not. Murder is defined as the unjustified killing of a human being. As justice is defined as giving each person their due, then the death penalty could not be considered murder. Whether it should be practiced or not is an entirely different question. As per the pedophilia issue, again, do societal norms make something right? Again, the Holocaust is a great example.

The death penalty is not murder only if it is justified per your personal sense of morality. This is were your morality and civil morality coincide. Again obviously my morality differs from both.

So your values and understanding should be the basis of morality?

Not that they should be, they are. Just as yours are the basis of your morality. Maybe you don't agree with all civil laws like me or maybe you do. Maybe you are part of the majority who's personal morality agrees with all of the civil law.

Abraham actually faced this dilemma in the Bible. He knew, and had faith, that his God who is Love, was merely testing his faith and could not be anything else then his essential properties and therefore would not actually demand such a sacrifice. You present a false dilemma to the Christian view of God.

So Abraham knew God was lying about wanting him to sacrifice his son? So if God ask the same of you, you also know God would be lying about his desire for you to fulfilling this request and so make an earnest attempt to fulfill it?

Do you think God actually turned Abraham's hand or did Abraham realize what God asked of him was wrong. What was written in Abraham heart? The desire to fulfill God's command or the desire to protect his son? Maybe it was a test, not of faith but of human morality.

You say he trusted God. In the end I say he trusted what was in his heart.

[Nakosis]

However I see morality as what the individual sees as right and wrong. No reason to think every individual will see right as wrong to be the same.

Doesn't matter. If the source for humanity is amoral, then humanity should have no since of morality at all, and we should not expect a universe where any type of moral framework exists.

The source of man's morality is what is written in his heart. Do you trust what is written in yours?

[Guest shiloh357]

However I see morality as what the individual sees as right and wrong. No reason to think every individual will see right as wrong to be the same.

Doesn't matter. If the source for humanity is amoral, then humanity should have no since of morality at all, and we should not expect a universe where any type of moral framework exists.

The source of man's morality is what is written in his heart. Do you trust what is written in yours?

If the source of humanity is amoral, then man cannot be a moral being. Morality cannot exist if all we are creatures here by chance and exist as nothing but a collection of atoms and molecules. If man is not the product of a Divine, moral Creator, then man has no morality written upon his heart.

Your statement implies that morality is inherent to human nature but the human experience contradicts that. Morals and values do not come naturally to human beings. They have to be taught and instilled in us when we are young chldren. Without any moral training a person would grow to live more like an animal than like a human being.

The problem is that morality doesnt' work in the real world. That is in part, why society creates laws.

I do not trust what is in my heart. The human heart is unreliable. It is fickle and hyprocritical. I trust the moral system written on the pages of God's Word.

[ByFaithAlone]

I think I see what your getting at. However, I have a few objections. You say that morals are merely synapses firing in our brain that give us the feelings of pain and "bring tears to our eyes" whenever we see atrocities. This means that you avoid committing actions merely because they cause society or you pain. However, if the action does not pain you or society, then, under your moral guidelines, it is not immoral. On the other hand, I am sure that you would contend that actions that cause joy, happiness, etc. are good. However, again, this is merely utilitarianism. It favors what is good for society or you (avoiding pain) over doing what is morally right or wrong. As we both agreed, utilitarianism is not morality. Therefore, your own words convict your method of "morality."

But how else can we detect that something is wrong if not via a cognitive process?

I am not denying that we detect something is wrong through our cognitive processes. However, the existence or lack of these processes does not change the morality of the action.

Psychopaths cannot feel this because of lack of empathy, which is also reduceable to a brain disfunction. They can look like normal and caring people but they just lack the projection of other people sufferance onto themselves.

However, despite said, “brain dysfunction,” do we excuse their actions as morally right because they lack empathy? I think not!

However, we could also interpret empathy as a selfish mechanism: at the end this is summarized in the sentence "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated " which is, if you think about it, self protecting.

So, again, we fall under the dilemma that, if it is not in our best interest to help the sick, elderly or other group then we should not help them and maybe even do them harm, again assuming it is in our best interest. This sounds like utilitarianism to me which we both label as amoral. When we realize that these emotions are merely neurons firing differently then anyone else, what makes it objectively wrong to ignore these “evolutionary traits.” Even if I accept that traits evolved as to allow communities (social contract ideas and all that), I would definitely not call them morals as they are not truly right or wrong but merely preferences based on our neurons.

I miss the time when I had all answers I do not know... I know that Hitler's father was a violent man who hit him all the time when he was still young. This could have affected his future behaviour. But does this fact make him less acountable? I do not have a satisfying answer to that.

At least you’re honest

As always, trying to post responses as fast as possible with school going on so I appreciate your patience.

[ByFaithAlone]

I am confused as to how the Euthyphro dilemma shows that these values can exist independtly from God. The Euthyphro dilemma is merely a challenge to the concept of a deity being the basis of morality and remain all powerful.

Perhaps that language I used was too strong. Rather than show that values can exist independently of God, I think it shows that we should prefer that values exist independently of God. (Which entails that we can conceive of values being independently of God which in turn suggests that such a thing is possible)

Thank you for adjusting your position. That is a much better angle. However, even if we prefer something, we would need to prove it is possible (again, see the moral argument – premise 1).

To those who are unfamiliar or watching this thread. The Euthyphro dilemma questions whether...

(a) Is something morally good because God commands it

or

(b) Does God command what is already morally good

If the first option is chosen, then anything God commads, such as rape, etc. is moral while if the second option is chosen then God is subject to some other set of independent morals.

However, from my perspective the Euthyphro dilemma is a false one. There is a third option. Morals exist because God is. He is the very defining characteristics for what moral is. It is what we call his nature or essential properties. As three possible answers exist the Euthyphro dilemma is a false one.

I’m not sure what it means to say that “morals exist because God is”, but to say that “He is the very defining characteristics for what moral is” is even more confusing to me.

If morality is the same thing as God’s nature or essential properties, then I don’t see how you’ve avoided the dilemma. Could God change his nature?

You are presenting what some atheists call the new Euthyphro dilemma. A Christian apologetic youtuber named Epydemic2020 does a great job at refuting it but I will paraphrase the basic response here and clarify and add on as needed later.

If not, then it looks like He is still subject to external laws of some kind (option b).

You are asking, “Can God not be God?” Of course not as this would defy all logic. As paradoxical as it seems, it is not impossible for an omnipotent God to be bound by logic. God, at least from the Christian perspective, cannot fail to be loving, compassionate, holy, etc. This is what I mean by His essential characteristics. He cannot be what he is not. He is not bound by some type of objective moral code but rather He is bound by the fact that He must be who He is.

A being constrained by the laws of logic can still be omnipotent within those limits, paradoxical though it may sound.

Agreed on this statement. Asking God to not be God is not a reasonable argument for arguing against the existence of God.

If God is defined by the fact that He created the universe, knows the truth of all propositions, loves his creations unconditionally and is omnipresent and so on, it’s perfectly possible for a being to satisfy thee criteria while not being able to change the laws of morality.

True, especially if God’s very nature is the essential basis of absolute morality and is therefore unchangable. This statement does also not necessarily infer that God is not the basis for morality and therefore my response to the dilemma is still valid.

[Nakosis]

If the source of humanity is amoral, then man cannot be a moral being. Morality cannot exist if all we are creatures here by chance and exist as nothing but a collection of atoms and molecules. If man is not the product of a Divine, moral Creator, then man has no morality written upon his heart.

Your statement implies that morality is inherent to human nature but the human experience contradicts that. Morals and values do not come naturally to human beings. They have to be taught and instilled in us when we are young chldren. Without any moral training a person would grow to live more like an animal than like a human being.

The problem is that morality doesnt' work in the real world. That is in part, why society creates laws.

I do not trust what is in my heart. The human heart is unreliable. It is fickle and hyprocritical. I trust the moral system written on the pages of God's Word.

Ok, fair enough. You don't.

But then how can you trust your values and motives when reading the Bible? How can you trust your understanding of what is written?

If you believe God created you, shouldn't you have a little faith in what God created?

Are you then left to trust what someone else tells you the Bible means?

[Guest shiloh357]

But then how can you trust your values and motives when reading the Bible? How can you trust your understanding of what is written?

If you believe God created you, shouldn't you have a little faith in what God created?

Are you then left to trust what someone else tells you the Bible means?

I fail to see the problem, since we are talking about morality.

"You shall not murder.'

"You shall not steal."

"You shall not bear false witness."

"You shall not make unto yourselves graven images and bow down to them."

"Honor your father and mother."

Seems pretty straight foward to me. Where is the confusion? God makes it pretty easy to understand. Why shouldn't I trust what is written?? Seems to me that you trying create an issue out of a nonissue.

Do you have a problem with those morality statements above??

I don't trust what God created because God's creation has been stained with sin. It is no longer as He created it. So I trust the Creator instead, since He is perfect and is without sin.