Is God necessary for (objective) morality?

[Btodd]

I've watched a handful of Craig debates, and I agree that he usually wins...not in any meaningful, rational sense, but in the sense of being a very skilled debater and rhetorician. I thought Arif Ahmed handled him very well though, as did Austin Dacey. I also seem to remember a good battle with Victor Stenger.

I also agree that his opponents rarely seem to have done their homework on him. He gives the same speeches over and over; it's not that difficult to find flaws in his arguments.

I will watch this one.

On objective morality, I don't think there is one. If objective morality comes from God, then it's merely whatever God says it is at any given time. Thou shalt not kill, unless God commands you to slay a Canaanite child with your sword. As Arif Ahmed said, whether objective moral values exist or not, they are not going to make those actions 'right'.

And I prefer the term 'moral values'. Just like aesthetic ones, we often agree on what they are, but there is no objective way to say so.

 

[plumjam]

It's funny that you reference a historical atrocity which used objective morality as a justification for those actions.
I thought you were trying to disprove my argument, not support it.

Hmm.. which objective morality was that?

And how well did "Just following orders" work as a defense at Nuremberg?
People realize that the objective morality isn't responsible, the individual is. Society must decide what it can tolerate, and the people in the society must decide what kind of society they can tolerate. It's a two way street.

No. Sorry.
If you abandon objective morality, and just therefore base moral decisions on what kind of society can be tolerated by the deciders then whith those being ajudged at the Nuremberg trials, if it was the case that the jury had been made up of 12 members of the SS, then you would be forced to agree that all those joyous Jew/Gypsy/Gay/Commie murderers were indeed acting justly, for various reasons that the jury understood.

If you kill me, there is no one else so you aren't morally required to do anything. Have fun with that.

I will. If you were with me, alone on a desert island, you'd feel fine about murdering me?
Sounds like you would. Yet here you are, trying to argue morality with me.

 

[joobz]

Hmm.. which objective morality was that?

Christian morality set by Martin Luther.
But, Does it matter?
They all seem so contradictory. Another problem with the claim of objective morality.

No. Sorry.
If you abandon objective morality, and just therefore base moral decisions on what kind of society can be tolerated by the deciders then whith those being ajudged at the Nuremberg trials, if it was the case that the jury had been made up of 12 members of the SS, then you would be forced to agree that all those joyous Jew/Gypsy/Gay/Commie murderers were indeed acting justly, for various reasons that the jury understood.

nope. This just doesn't hold. Morality is a collective choice made by a group deciding what provides the best life for the most people. It doesn't take much thought to realize that a society which places one group as superior to another doesn't provide any security to the individual. Afterall, what argument do you have against not having your group be decided as inferior?

I will. If you were with me, alone on a desert island, you'd feel fine about murdering me?
Sounds like you would. Yet here you are, trying to argue morality with me.

Not at all. I wouldn't do it because I recognize the survival advantage of having a companion than not having a companion. And why do you feel the need to resort to murder, rape and pedophilia in all your examples? Is your belief in an objective morality all that prevents you from doing those things?

 

[bluskool]

the objective morality approach doesn't have much to say either. It fails simply because of that "unkown" object which is setting the moral code.

Only if the moral code is prescriptive, like speeding laws which are prescribed by the state. If that's the case, morality is still subjective even if there is some unknown object prescribing it. But if the moral code is descriptive, like the law of gravity for example, then it would be objective. In order for morality to be objective, it must be a fact about the universe, not something dictated by anything. Craig is arguing that god's moral nature is a fact about god, not that morality is just whatever god thinks it is.

Objective morality pushes the choice of what is or isn't moral onto some arbitrary other and removes responsibility from the individual making the choice. Without needing to justifying their actions, any action becomes permissible (as long as they believe the object approves).

rejecting objective morality puts the responsibility of moral choice squarely on the individual and that person can no longer hide from the choices they make. If they do not have a logically sound argument to justify their morality by, then it is their failing. The objective moralist, however, could always hide from needing this justification. "because it just is!"

I'm not seeing it. If right and wrong are just facts about the universe they could still have reasons for being so. If someone says that a certain wrong action they did is, in fact, right, we could demand reasons why. We could say "what are the reasons for thinking that is objectively right." If, on the other hand, morality is subjective, the only reason they would need to give is that they think it is right. On what grounds could I argue that their opinion about what is right is any better than mine?
So, it seems to me that the situation is the opposite of what you said, but I definitely could be missing something. Hell, I hope I am missing something because every time I think I have a good argument for objective morality, it falls apart on closer inspection, so it would be nice to think that subjective morality is superior anyway.

 

[qayak]

"Is God necessary for (objective) morality?"

Yes, as an example of what NOT to do.

 

[pgwenthold]

t
Objective morality pushes the choice of what is or isn't moral onto some arbitrary other and removes responsibility from the individual making the choice.

However, that in itself is a subjective push.

Craig apparently appeals to God for his source of morals. I appeal to Bill and Ted. What makes him objective and me not?

 

[plumjam]

Christian morality set by Martin Luther.
But, Does it matter?

Martin Luther? You're first trying to tie me to Christianity and then to Protestantism and then to Martin Luther?
Jeez, that's not only desperate but fundamentally strange.

They all seem so contradictory. Another problem with the claim of objective morality.

Huh? if witnesses describe some happening with sometimes contradictory descriptions would you take that as proof that the event had not taken place?
Poor car insurance claimants.

nope. This just doesn't hold. Morality is a collective choice made by a group deciding what provides the best life for the most people.

So, for white American plantation owners, slavery was moral because it gave them a great life, and the blacks, of course, weren't really people

It doesn't take much thought to realize that a society which places one group as superior to another doesn't provide any security to the individual. Afterall, what argument do you have against not having your group be decided as inferior?

Hmm.. not sure what you're arguing here.
Though your sentiments might have had more strength if you had not always been so ready to try to diminish the suffering of the victims of atheist communism, cos it fitted with your current worldview (while being ever so worried about the Witches of Salem, and such)





Not at all. I wouldn't do it because I recognize the survival advantage of having a companion than not having a companion. And why do you feel the need to resort to murder, rape and pedophilia in all your examples? Is your belief in an objective morality all that prevents you from doing those things?

 

[I Ratant]

I'm somewhat puzzled by the example of child torture and rape being offered as a possible situation for objective morality.
I know of no way to justify torture, or rape for anyone, much less on a child.
There are places where what the West considers rape is termed "marriage", where pre-pubescent children can be legally abused, but the true morality of that peculiar institution is debatable.
What would be a more palatable or less easily dismissed example of objective morality?

 

[fls]

It's taken me a while to figure out what believers mean by "objective morals", because for the longest time I thought that the "objective" part of that term was meant to have the same meaning as the word "objective". But what is meant is whether or not humans have an inherent sense of 'right' or 'wrong' or whether they are generally malleable social constructs, I think. And that if they are inherent, their source must necessarily be a capricious entity (referred to as God in the thread tittle) rather than simply a product of human biology. Have I got that right?

Linda

 

[plumjam]

So, it seems to me that the situation is the opposite of what you said, but I definitely could be missing something. Hell, I hope I am missing something because every time I think I have a good argument for objective morality, it falls apart on closer inspection, so it would be nice to think that subjective morality is superior anyway.

Bluskool, let me say you've made some great posts in this thread. In this last sentence of yours I think you, perhaps unwittingly, point to how you could not be wrong:
your "it would be nice to think that subjective morality is superior anyway"

the notion of moral superiority and inferiority are predicated on the reality of objective morality.
And thus you and I (despite your doubts) win.
Simple

And anyone who objects to this on moral grounds is either supporting us, or being a fool, or - gloriously - both

 

[bluskool]

Morality is a collective choice made by a group deciding what provides the best life for the most people.

If the pedophiles of the world got a hold of all the nukes, took over the world and killed everyone who thought pedophilia was wrong, would raping a child now be right? I not asking if it would advantageous for the society to do that, but would it be right since that is what the society says is right?

 

[bluskool]

Bluskool, let me say you've made some great posts in this thread. In this last sentence of yours I think you, perhaps unwittingly, point to how you could not be wrong:
your "it would be nice to think that subjective morality is superior anyway"

the notion of moral superiority and inferiority are predicated on the reality of objective morality.
And thus you and I (despite your doubts) win.

I can dream, can't I?

 

[bluskool]

I'm somewhat puzzled by the example of child torture and rape being offered as a possible situation for objective morality.
I know of no way to justify torture, or rape for anyone, much less on a child.

Well, if morality is subjective, you could justify it by just saying that you think it is right. What further justification is needed if it's just an opinion like whether or not you think lasagna is better than spaghetti?

 

[plumjam]

I can dream, can't I?

Hey, we already won a long time ago.
You and I are now like Borg and Mcenroe trying to win the 1979 Halle Open (Doubles Tournament).

 

[Jonnyclueless]

If the pedophiles of the world got a hold of all the nukes, took over the world and killed everyone who thought pedophilia was wrong, would raping a child now be right? I not asking if it would advantageous for the society to do that, but would it be right since that is what the society says is right?

But the question applies to the person you are asking, not the people who are still alive.

Are those pedophiles harming children and causing damage to them? If so, then I would say yes. I'm sure if you asked one of the pedophiles, they would say no.

 

[bluskool]

It's taken me a while to figure out what believers mean by "objective morals", because for the longest time I thought that the "objective" part of that term was meant to have the same meaning as the word "objective". But what is meant is whether or not humans have an inherent sense of 'right' or 'wrong' or whether they are generally malleable social constructs, I think. And that if they are inherent, their source must necessarily be a capricious entity (referred to as God in the thread tittle) rather than simply a product of human biology. Have I got that right?

Linda

It doesn't matter if it's a social construct or an inherent sense. Either one would just be a product of evolution. If something is objectively true, it is true whether or not anyone thinks it is (mind independent). Subjective means it is true if someone thinks it is true (mind dependent).

But if morality is objective, it can still be malleable to the situation. Murder could be right in some situations and wrong in others. With objective morality we can look back on societies in the past that sacrificed humans to the gods, and say "yup, that was f'ed up." If it's subjective, we can just say "well, I think it was terrible, but they only had a different system of morality than we do, no better, no worse."

 

[bluskool]

But the question applies to the person you are asking, not the people who are still alive.

Are those pedophiles harming children and causing damage to them? If so, then I would say yes. I'm sure if you asked one of the pedophiles, they would say no.

It's a hypothetical. I'm not asking if you think it is wrong, I am asking if it would be wrong in that society.
You might think causing harm to others is wrong and I agree, but that's just our opinion, right? There is nothing "really" wrong with raping children if morality is subjective. We just don't like it.

 

[plumjam]

But the question applies to the person you are asking, not the people who are still alive.

Are those pedophiles harming children and causing damage to them? If so, then I would say yes. I'm sure if you asked one of the pedophiles, they would say no.

Hmm.. let's imagine a future human society that automatically jettisoned all male and female pedophiles away to live on Mars. Some of the younger/older ones mated and thus some babies were born. On Mars, would it be ok for babies to be regularly ******, seeing as that planet's population was overwhelmingly desperate to do that (it was socially desired and accepted) , and even, perhaps crafted laws etc.. to that end?

 

[bluskool]

I've watched a handful of Craig debates, and I agree that he usually wins...not in any meaningful, rational sense, but in the sense of being a very skilled debater and rhetorician. I thought Arif Ahmed handled him very well though, as did Austin Dacey. I also seem to remember a good battle with Victor Stenger.

Dacey and Ahmed both did really well. I have heard a lot of people say that Stenger did well, but I didn't really think so. He did do well on the fine tuning and cosmological arguments, but didn't really hammer the points home like he could have and seemed ill prepared in general.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Hmm.. let's imagine a future human society that automatically jettisoned all male and female pedophiles away to live on Mars. Some of the younger/older ones mated and thus some babies were born. On Mars, would it be ok for babies to be regularly ******, seeing as that planet's population was overwhelmingly desperate to do that (it was socially desired and accepted) , and even, perhaps crafted laws etc.. to that end?

I would say my answer would be the same. I would say that if those babies suffer as a result, then it would be morally wrong. I am sure many of those pedophiles would disagree. Or they might agree, but allow their personal desires to trump their sense of morality as we have all done from time to time (though hopefully not in terms of molesting children).

And of course I don't speak objectively, I speak based on my moral standards since I am addressing the question. And that might be different than that of those there on that planet. I quantify my reason based on the issue of suffering vs benefits, not simply feelings.