Is God necessary for (objective) morality?

[bluskool]

.
Objectively, with no awareness or intent other than survival, that occurs all the time.
Ravens raid other bird's nests for eggs... as do raccoons.
Young cowbirds hatching from eggs laid in other bird's nests will push the true offspring of the bird out of the nest to their deaths.
There's no sexual intent, just survival.
When one is aware of one's actions, then that behavior is repressed in most of us.
Raping and torturing children is with us today, in the better educated sections of society, by people who teach morality.
Go figure.

Yes, and you can argue that the reason it isn't immoral for an animal to rape is that it isn't capable of understanding that what it is doing is wrong. Would you say that child raping priests who do understand aren't really doing anything wrong, just something that's a social no-no, like farting at your grandma's funeral or not putting your dinner napkin in your lap?

 

[joobz]

I don't believe the social contract approach would have much to say on the matter. In the contract approach if you were the baby you'd be terminally unaware of what was being done to you. Yet I think every non sociopathic and/or sick paedophilic human being would rightly believe such activity was wrong regardless of contractual/experiential consequences.

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.

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!"

 

[KingMerv00]

How does God create objective morality?

 

[Piscivore]

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

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!"

 

[Piscivore]

Let's take the example of an unconscious (vegetative state) terminally ill 2 year old without living family or friends.
Would it be morally ok to allow 1,000 paedophiles to line up and butt**** the baby before it died (while it was thus still warm and more pleasurable for them)?
Or would there be something objectively morally wrong with that?

It would seem that in that scenario there are at least 1000 people don't find it morally objectionable. How many people get to weigh in on the decision?

 

[plumjam]

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!"

Good attempt Joobz, but I have bolded the parts that show that you (in spite of your self and your own arguments) implicitly believe in objective morality.

In fact, and for future reference, if you disbelieve in moral objectivity, it would be infinitely wise not to enter into moral debates... in exactly the same way that if you disbelieved in objective physicality it would be stupid to argue about planets, atoms or electricity.

 

[joobz]

Good attempt Joobz, but I have bolded the parts that show that you (in spite of your self and your own arguments) implicitly believe in objective morality.

I suggest you bold whole sentences next time. You'll avoid making the mistake of miss-characterizing my argument.

"If they do not have a logically sound argument to justify their morality by, then it is their failing. "

Who do they need to justify their morality to?
When you answer that, you'll understand why my argument stands.

In fact, and for future reference, if you disbelieve in moral objectivity, it would be infinitely wise not to enter into moral debates... in exactly the same way that if you disbelieved in objective physicality it would be stupid to argue about planets, atoms or electricity.

I'm sure this is clever to some, but it doesn't actually fit here. Please see your above mistake.

 

[plumjam]

It would seem that in that scenario there are at least 1000 people don't find it morally objectionable. How many people get to weigh in on the decision?

Hmm.. strange response.

Is the sun an objective reality?
If 1000 blind blokes told me they couldn't see it would that mean the sun wasn't an objective reality?

Transpose that all to the realm of moral perception.
Some people see things better than others.

 

[plumjam]

Joobz,
if there's no objective morality why would anyone need to "hide from the choices they made"?

 

[joobz]

Joobz,
if there's no objective morality why would anyone need to "hide from the choices they made"?

From the rest of society, of course.

If you thought honestly on the question I posed, you would know the answer to that question.

 

[plumjam]

From the rest of society, of course.

If you thought honestly on the question I posed, you would know the answer to that question.

So if you and I were alone on a desert island, suddenly all these moral imperatives of yours would cease to exist?

 

[KingMerv00]

Hmm.. strange response.

Is the sun an objective reality?
If 1000 blind blokes told me they couldn't see it would that mean the sun wasn't an objective reality?

Transpose that all to the realm of moral perception.
Some people see things better than others.

How does the existence of God create objective morality? All I see is "might makes right".

 

[Brian-M]

How does God create objective morality?

By allowing theists to define morality as anything that is in accordance with God's laws.

 

[joobz]

So if you and I were alone on a desert island, suddenly all these moral imperatives of yours would cease to exist?

The fundamental basis of moral societal structure would remain.
You would have to ask yourself, "Would I want to live on this island if I did X to Joobz?"
If you killed me, you would have to be willing to live in isolation and support yourself.
If you hurt me, you would have to live with retaliation and the consequences of your actions.


Why would you think these points would disappear?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Agreement isn't necessary for objectivity. For example, if I said that 2 + 2 = 5 and you said it = 4, we wouldn't conclude that arithmetic is subjective. When two people disagree about morals, it might be the case that one person is just wrong (if morals are objective that is).
Also, the further you break it down, eventually you would indeed have to arrive at some unprovable axioms and you could argue that those are just opinions. That's the case with anything, even math. We aren't looking for certainty when it comes to objectivity, and that's a good thing too because I don't think certainty about anything is ever possible.

I understand. And if morality were as demonstrable as math I wouldn't have an issue. But the fact that all parties have to use a subjective process to make any such claims pretty much shows Craig's argument has no merit. It's an opinion something is factual. Kind of a contradiction. If a moral is objective then we would all agree with such a moral because it couldn't be subjective. Can Craig list such a moral? I am sure he would say whatever god does is moral. How can he prove this? If I claim everything his god does is immoral, how can he disprove it?

This is why I think his own argument disproves his own argument.

 

[plumjam]

How does the existence of God create objective morality? All I see is "might makes right".

Well, it's a good question.

In my opinion the question of whether objective morality exists is just a slightly different way of asking whether there is objective meaning in our shared reality (the present universe etc...).

If there is no objective meaning to the Universe then there's absolutely no moral power behind anyone who... for example... argues it's wrong to hire out newborn orphan babies to media magnates, to be anonymously raped and then buried in the deserts of the Sudan.

If, for example, you and I want to be able to converse on subjects that have any moral meaning, such conversations would be completely pointless if either you or I were to believe that "anything goes".

I don't believe that you believe that "anything goes"... and, in fact, for your arguments against me to have any power against me, they would need to be based on a position that "anything does not go"... because for arguments to have any power they need to mutually exist on some sort of rail that has a meaningful ability to connect to the other argument

Subjective morality only arguments do not have that.

 

[plumjam]

The fundamental basis of moral societal structure would remain.

Which societal structure? How about if you were a boot-licking Jew and I was an SS officer with shiny boots and a Luger and lots of ammo?

You would have to ask yourself, "Would I want to live on this island if I did X to Joobz?"

Maybe you'd be licking my boots, cos I have the gun, and I see the sea-plane approaching, and I hate your Jewish odour, so I shoot you in the back of the neck.

If you killed me, you would have to be willing to live in isolation and support yourself.

Not really. Most Jews are Woody-Allen-like neurotic nuisances who manage to live well in places like Manhattan, without food drops even for their lost executive producers.

If you hurt me, you would have to live with retaliation and the consequences of your actions.

Your argument against crime is that the perpetrators of it would have to live with the consequences?
Lol.. try saying that to the people who commit and get away with about 80% of crime in the western world.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Are you suggesting that subjective morality means anything goes?

 

[joobz]

Which societal structure? How about if you were a boot-licking Jew and I was an SS officer with shiny boots and a Luger and lots of ammo?

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.

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.

Your argument against crime is that the perpetrators of it would have to live with the consequences?

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

Lol.. try saying that to the people who commit and get away with about 80% of crime in the western world.

hey, you just introduced other people again into the scenario and are now Dependant upon what society (and individuals in society) are willing to tolerate.

 

[Robin]

If there is no objective meaning to the Universe...

Is there an objective meaning to God?