The Moral Argument

[UndecidedFrog]

"One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated "

This is exactly how Confucius stated it in his Analects (500 BCE).

Regards,

UF

[Nakosis]

"One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated "

This is exactly how Confucius stated it in his Analects (500 BCE).

Regards,

UF

Confucius also used the term Junzi which was his idea man, the perfect person.

Literally translated Junzi means the Lord's son.

Of course here Lord meaning King or Emperor.

[esyflw]

Just as a matter of interest, doesn't this lead to moral nihilism. For instance, you say that you do not believe that objective morals exist. Doesn't this mean that you could not condemn...

(a) The Holocaust

(b) The Armenian Genocide

© Rape

(d) Torture

(e) <Choose from list of morally reprehensible actions>

....as morally wrong?

Therefore, hypothetically speaking why does it matter if you go out and kill someone or commit pedophilia? Do you honestly believe that no objective morals exist by which we condemn these actions?

nice

Edited August 11, 2011 by esyflw

[doubting_tommy]

Hello All:

Just wanted to see what everyone thinks of the moral argument...

Premise 1: Objective moral values and duties cannot exist without God

Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties exist

Logical Conclusion: God exists

Do any atheists out there disagree with the premises? On what grounds?

I think both premises need to be established. I suspect that the second premise can be established, but that the first cannot.

[ByFaithAlone]

Firstly to viole and the other nonbelievers who have posted and are waiting patiently, I do promise to get back to you. It's just been really busy with school starting up again. Thank you so very much for your patience

Hello All:

Just wanted to see what everyone thinks of the moral argument...

Premise 1: Objective moral values and duties cannot exist without God

Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties exist

Logical Conclusion: God exists

Do any atheists out there disagree with the premises? On what grounds?

I think both premises need to be established. I suspect that the second premise can be established, but that the first cannot.

Welcome to the discussion! Go ahead and lay out your response to the first...

[doubting_tommy]

Welcome to the discussion! Go ahead and lay out your response to the first...

My first response would probably be a reference to the Euthyphro dilemma as a way of showing that values could exist independently of God.

[CranberryJuice]

"One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated "

This is exactly how Confucius stated it in his Analects (500 BCE).

Regards,

UF

Snap, I did not realize this!

[ByFaithAlone]

Welcome to the discussion! Go ahead and lay out your response to the first...

My first response would probably be a reference to the Euthyphro dilemma as a way of showing that values could exist independently of God.

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

[doubting_tommy]

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)

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? If not, then it looks like He is still subject to external laws of some kind (option b). If not, then God could change His nature and we would have to change our definitions of morality.

I think the problem here is that people become overly fixated with the notion of God’s omnipotence such that it’s considered an unsatisfactory outcome if it turns out that God is bound by any external rules whatsoever. If God cannot make a round square, or make 2+2 equal to five, that doesn’t make Him any less God in any meaningful sense. A being constrained by the laws of logic can still be omnipotent within those limits, paradoxical though it may sound. 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.

Even a perfect judge does not necessarily write the law, he interprets it. A perfect being would have a perfect interpretation, which would explain why God’s commands ought to always be obeyed (provided that we have good reasons to believe that the commands we are receiving are coming from God).

[Nakosis]

I am reading an interesting book about the subject. I would like to make a little moral test...

There is a 30 years old guy, who enjoyed a very happy life. He has grown in a stable and happy family. He has never been mistreated and all conditions are met for him to have developed a very stable and healthy psychological profile.

One day, while walking on the street and being completely sober and not under the influence of any drugs, he decides to kill a young woman, he never met before. When asked by the police why he did it, he said that he was bored and wanted to kill that girl just for the fun of it.

What should we do with this guy?

Got to put him away on the chance he might become bored again to protect anyone whom he might take out his boredom on.

His morality shouldn't be the issue. It should be the threat he presents. That's what we as a society have to deal with.

He make think it is morally fine to deal with one's boredom in such a way. However if he never acts on it you can't hold him accountable for his thoughts.

So we don't have to deal with a person's morality. We have to deal with their actions. As far as I'm concerned it is not punishment. It's protection.

It's stupid to think that punishment is going to alter a person's morality. It may alter their behavior. They will either not do it to avoid consequences or be very covert about their actions so they won't be caught.