Source of ethics, and morality

[Czernobog]

The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most.

The reasoning for theists is that for absolute moral law, there must be a lawgiver. The analogy used is human law that requires a legislature to make the law, and a judiciary to enforce it. The problem with this reasoning is that theists are conflating two different concepts - morality, and legality. It is true that law requires both a legislature and judiciary, however, as demonstrated by Jim Crow, as well as other laws, having a lawgiver is not, itself, a guarantee of moral, or just laws. Thus the analogy, as well as the premise rather falls apart.

So, what guarantees that moral laws are, in fact, moral? Logically it must be that the law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. However, this requires that morality had to proceed legality. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God. However, according to theists, there is no morality independent of God.

Socrates make this exact point when he asked "is good good be cause it is good, and good gods choose good, or is good good, because the gods choose it? If it is the former then good is simply good, and God has nothing to do with it; God is only "good", because He chooses to do that which is good. If it is the latter, then good is entirely arbitrary and is solely dependent on God's whim.

So, the question becomes, if God cannot, logically, be the source of morality, then what is, and how does one know what is "good"?

 

[defcon4]

What is right and what is wrong is ingrained into the soul. It can be altered only with conditioning from childhood when the brain s most impressionable. Doing wrong may conflict with the spirit and cause agony but the "body" i.e. brain will find justification for wrong doing.

 

[ding]

The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most.

The reasoning for theists is that for absolute moral law, there must be a lawgiver. The analogy used is human law that requires a legislature to make the law, and a judiciary to enforce it. The problem with this reasoning is that theists are conflating two different concepts - morality, and legality. It is true that law requires both a legislature and judiciary, however, as demonstrated by Jim Crow, as well as other laws, having a lawgiver is not, itself, a guarantee of moral, or just laws. Thus the analogy, as well as the premise rather falls apart.

So, what guarantees that moral laws are, in fact, moral? Logically it must be that the law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. However, this requires that morality had to proceed legality. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God. However, according to theists, there is no morality independent of God.

Socrates make this exact point when he asked "is good good be cause it is good, and good gods choose good, or is good good, because the gods choose it? If it is the former then good is simply good, and God has nothing to do with it; God is only "good", because He chooses to do that which is good. If it is the latter, then good is entirely arbitrary and is solely dependent on God's whim.

So, the question becomes, if God cannot, logically, be the source of morality, then what is, and how does one know what is "good"?

I believe you have moral certitude, it is just that your morals are relative and subject to change. Your morals are based on primal needs and pleasure. For instance you have rationalized that mocking people is moral. You have conviction that it is true, you're just wrong is all.

 

[Votto]

The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most.

The reasoning for theists is that for absolute moral law, there must be a lawgiver. The analogy used is human law that requires a legislature to make the law, and a judiciary to enforce it. The problem with this reasoning is that theists are conflating two different concepts - morality, and legality. It is true that law requires both a legislature and judiciary, however, as demonstrated by Jim Crow, as well as other laws, having a lawgiver is not, itself, a guarantee of moral, or just laws. Thus the analogy, as well as the premise rather falls apart.

So, what guarantees that moral laws are, in fact, moral? Logically it must be that the law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. However, this requires that morality had to proceed legality. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God. However, according to theists, there is no morality independent of God.

Socrates make this exact point when he asked "is good good be cause it is good, and good gods choose good, or is good good, because the gods choose it? If it is the former then good is simply good, and God has nothing to do with it; God is only "good", because He chooses to do that which is good. If it is the latter, then good is entirely arbitrary and is solely dependent on God's whim.

So, the question becomes, if God cannot, logically, be the source of morality, then what is, and how does one know what is "good"?

We all have a code of morality, even if we don't believe in a God.

We are wired to develop morality based upon authority figures we esteem. The source can be our parents, teachers, pastors, law makers, peers, etc.

Case in point is slavery. When slavery was legal the general consensus was that it was not ideal, but it was OK. Now after centuries of being illegal, the average consensus is that slavery is morally reprehensible.

Abortion is also comparable. Before Roe vs. Wade, the general consensus was that abortion was immoral. However, decades after abortion has been made legal, the average consensus is that abortion is not ideal, but it is OK.

Gay marriage is the same. 50 years ago the average consensus would have been that it is immoral. Today, however, now that it has been legalized the average consensus is that it may not be ideal, but it is OK.

It is somewhat humbling understanding what lemmings we are. Pass a law and watch morals change accordingly. I guess it then behooves us on which authority figures we esteem enough to let them guide our moral compass.

Having said all that, I would say that we are all guided by an internal universal morality that can be summed up by the Golden Rule which is to do unto others as you would have them do to you. That meant that to rationalize slavery as OK, the first step was to dehumanize them as being subhuman, or a glorified ape. Only then can you then treat them like beasts of burden or even kill them if need be. And we see this time after time as Jews are compared to vermin or nonMuslims are infidels or the unborn are merely a fetus. Only when you dehumanize people can you then abuse them with a clear conscience.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
good may simply be what works as opposed to what does not work and where purity is attained.

where lurks evil is the problem. the reason for an Almighty.
.

 

[Boss]

So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God.

Here is the fallacy in your argument. God is omnipotent and has more supremacy than the human lawgiver you are exemplifying. There is nothing independent of God. You are attempting to apply human attributes to God who is superior. God is both the Morality and the giver of law.

Where there is a fundamental problem is not with God. It is with highly fallible man. Words are created like "good" and "moral" and "Righteous!" Humans apply their own perceptions of these words and what they mean. Morality is whatever man decides it's supposed to be at any given time. Good is what man convinces himself is good. Righteous is what men believe they have God's blessing in what is good.

 

[ding]

A good comparison between absolute morals versus relative morals would be abortion. We know it is wrong to unjustifiably end a human life. Everyone agrees with this. We also know from science that human life begins at conception when a genetically distinct new human being comes into existence. No one can argue against this scientific fact. Absolute morals would inform us that it is wrong to end this human life regardless of circumstance. Relative morals on the other hand require the dehumanization of this human life, to justify the ending of this it. It has been done in a variety of ways. We see this type of rationalization being made on almost every issue were there is a conflict between absolute and relative morals. In effect moral relativity surrenders to absolute morality because it needs to justify wrong as right.

 

[Czernobog]

So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God.

Here is the fallacy in your argument. God is omnipotent and has more supremacy than the human lawgiver you are exemplifying. There is nothing independent of God. You are attempting to apply human attributes to God who is superior. God is both the Morality and the giver of law.

Where there is a fundamental problem is not with God. It is with highly fallible man. Words are created like "good" and "moral" and "Righteous!" Humans apply their own perceptions of these words and what they mean. Morality is whatever man decides it's supposed to be at any given time. Good is what man convinces himself is good. Righteous is what men believe they have God's blessing in what is good.

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

 

[sealybobo]

The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most.

The reasoning for theists is that for absolute moral law, there must be a lawgiver. The analogy used is human law that requires a legislature to make the law, and a judiciary to enforce it. The problem with this reasoning is that theists are conflating two different concepts - morality, and legality. It is true that law requires both a legislature and judiciary, however, as demonstrated by Jim Crow, as well as other laws, having a lawgiver is not, itself, a guarantee of moral, or just laws. Thus the analogy, as well as the premise rather falls apart.

So, what guarantees that moral laws are, in fact, moral? Logically it must be that the law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. However, this requires that morality had to proceed legality. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God. However, according to theists, there is no morality independent of God.

Socrates make this exact point when he asked "is good good be cause it is good, and good gods choose good, or is good good, because the gods choose it? If it is the former then good is simply good, and God has nothing to do with it; God is only "good", because He chooses to do that which is good. If it is the latter, then good is entirely arbitrary and is solely dependent on God's whim.

So, the question becomes, if God cannot, logically, be the source of morality, then what is, and how does one know what is "good"?

I believe you have moral certitude, it is just that your morals are relative and subject to change. Your morals are based primal needs and satisfying your earthly pleasure. For instance you have rationalized that mocking people is moral. You have conviction that it is true, you're just wrong is all.

I think he knows mocking someone is wrong. Could you ever be convinced murder was moral? How about stealing? I agree us atheists don't worry that a God is going to punish us for committing adultery but hopefully we have learned empathy and the golden rule

 

[sealybobo]

A good comparison between absolute morals versus relative morals would be abortion. We know it is wrong to unjustifiably end a human life. Everyone agrees with this. We also know from science that human life begins at conception when a genetically distinct new human being comes into existence. No one can argue against this scientific fact. Absolute morals would inform us that it is wrong to end this human life regardless of circumstance. Relative morals on the other hand require the dehumanization of this human life, to justify the ending of this it. It has been done in a variety of ways. We see this type of rationalization being made on almost every issue were there is a conflict between absolute and relative morals. In effect moral relativity surrenders to absolute morality because it needs to justify wrong as right.

Life just isn't that precious

 

[Boss]

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

My personal belief is, God doesn't have any reason to command humans.

Why would an omnipotent God have to command anything?

 

[ding]

A good comparison between absolute morals versus relative morals would be abortion. We know it is wrong to unjustifiably end a human life. Everyone agrees with this. We also know from science that human life begins at conception when a genetically distinct new human being comes into existence. No one can argue against this scientific fact. Absolute morals would inform us that it is wrong to end this human life regardless of circumstance. Relative morals on the other hand require the dehumanization of this human life, to justify the ending of this it. It has been done in a variety of ways. We see this type of rationalization being made on almost every issue were there is a conflict between absolute and relative morals. In effect moral relativity surrenders to absolute morality because it needs to justify wrong as right.

Life just isn't that precious

I would say that life, especially beings that know and create, is the most precious gift in the universe. It is most certainly the rarest.

 

[sealybobo]

A good comparison between absolute morals versus relative morals would be abortion. We know it is wrong to unjustifiably end a human life. Everyone agrees with this. We also know from science that human life begins at conception when a genetically distinct new human being comes into existence. No one can argue against this scientific fact. Absolute morals would inform us that it is wrong to end this human life regardless of circumstance. Relative morals on the other hand require the dehumanization of this human life, to justify the ending of this it. It has been done in a variety of ways. We see this type of rationalization being made on almost every issue were there is a conflict between absolute and relative morals. In effect moral relativity surrenders to absolute morality because it needs to justify wrong as right.

Life just isn't that precious

I would say that life, especially beings that know and create, is the most precious gift in the universe. It is most certainly the rarest.

I think stars are the most amazing things. We come from stars that died and flung their guts into the universe long before our star was even born.

And every star probably has life surrounding it. Before earth it's possible Mars had life. And there may be life in europa

 

[Czernobog]

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

My personal belief is, God doesn't have any reason to command humans.

Why would an omnipotent God have to command anything?

I'm confused. You believe in an omnipotent God, but you don't believe he has any expectations of people? Based on this, I presume you are not a Christian?

 

[defcon4]

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

My personal belief is, God doesn't have any reason to command humans.

Why would an omnipotent God have to command anything?

I'm confused. You believe in an omnipotent God, but you don't believe he has any expectations of people? Based on this, I presume you are not a Christian?

You are wrong Bobo. God is incorporeal and we are not separate entities from God. We are like a cell within a body and some cells may be cancerous. Of course, I simplified things in a great deal for illustration.

 

[Votto]

So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God.

Here is the fallacy in your argument. God is omnipotent and has more supremacy than the human lawgiver you are exemplifying. There is nothing independent of God. You are attempting to apply human attributes to God who is superior. God is both the Morality and the giver of law.

Where there is a fundamental problem is not with God. It is with highly fallible man. Words are created like "good" and "moral" and "Righteous!" Humans apply their own perceptions of these words and what they mean. Morality is whatever man decides it's supposed to be at any given time. Good is what man convinces himself is good. Righteous is what men believe they have God's blessing in what is good.

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

I suppose a good example of this would be God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.

On the surface, this appears both evil and cruel. Here Abraham is being asked to sacrifice his most valued possession, his son.

Of course, what lies on the surface does not expose what is underneath.

During those ancient times child sacrifice was a common practice. In fact, it seemed to be one of the leading reasons God drove the Canaanites out of the Promised land as the Canaanites sacrificed their children to gods like Molech. Of course, they were not the only ones. Around the world child sacrifice was common place, like the Aztecs of South America and recently it was discovered that the Greeks also practiced this with worship of Zues. According to the Bible, God saw this as morally reprehensible and a cause for wiping out the Canaanites and all traces of their religion and culture.

So why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac if he so despised child sacrifice? I think, among other reasons, God was sending a message to ancient man. The message was, God does not accept child sacrifice of any kind because he hates it. That is why he stopped Abraham from killing his son and gave Abraham an animal to sacrifice in his stead.

 

[Czernobog]

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

My personal belief is, God doesn't have any reason to command humans.

Why would an omnipotent God have to command anything?

I'm confused. You believe in an omnipotent God, but you don't believe he has any expectations of people? Based on this, I presume you are not a Christian?

You are wrong Bobo. God is incorporeal and we are not separate entities from God. We are like a cell within a body and some cells may be cancerous. Of course, I simplified things in a great deal for illustration.

If I understand what you're saying, correctly, you seem to be suggesting something akin to the cosmic consciousness of Buddhism. While, I appreciate your position, there is really no more evidence of that position than there is of an individual divinity.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God.

Here is the fallacy in your argument. God is omnipotent and has more supremacy than the human lawgiver you are exemplifying. There is nothing independent of God. You are attempting to apply human attributes to God who is superior. God is both the Morality and the giver of law.

Where there is a fundamental problem is not with God. It is with highly fallible man. Words are created like "good" and "moral" and "Righteous!" Humans apply their own perceptions of these words and what they mean. Morality is whatever man decides it's supposed to be at any given time. Good is what man convinces himself is good. Righteous is what men believe they have God's blessing in what is good.

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

I suppose a good example of this would be God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.

On the surface, this appears both evil and cruel. Here Abraham is being asked to sacrifice his most valued possession, his son.

Of course, what lies on the surface does not expose what is underneath.

During those ancient times child sacrifice was a common practice. In fact, it seemed to be one of the leading reasons God drove the Canaanites out of the Promised land as the Canaanites sacrificed their children to gods like Molech. Of course, they were not the only ones. Around the world child sacrifice was common place, like the Aztecs of South America and recently it was discovered that the Greeks also practiced this with worship of Zues. According to the Bible, God saw this as morally reprehensible and a cause for wiping out the Canaanites and all traces of their religion and culture.

So why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac if he so despised child sacrifice? I think, among other reasons, God was sending a message to ancient man. The message was, God does not accept child sacrifice of any kind because he hates it. That is why he stopped Abraham from killing his son and gave Abraham an animal to sacrifice in his stead.

And what of the genocides that were ordered? Mind you, I'm not talking about war - although he ordered several of those, too. I am referring to actual genocide - the killing of every man, woman, and child...even the livestock. If a political leader ordered that, we would call them monstrous, and the entire world would rise against them for their crime. So, how does God ordering that reconcile with a "just", and moral God?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[defcon4]

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

My personal belief is, God doesn't have any reason to command humans.

Why would an omnipotent God have to command anything?

I'm confused. You believe in an omnipotent God, but you don't believe he has any expectations of people? Based on this, I presume you are not a Christian?

You are wrong Bobo. God is incorporeal and we are not separate entities from God. We are like a cell within a body and some cells may be cancerous. Of course, I simplified things in a great deal for illustration.

If I understand what you're saying, correctly, you seem to be suggesting something akin to the cosmic consciousness of Buddhism. While, I appreciate your position, there is really no more evidence of that position than there is of an individual divinity.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I appreciate your appreciation, however if you look for evidence you are shit out of luck.

 

[Czernobog]

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

My personal belief is, God doesn't have any reason to command humans.

Why would an omnipotent God have to command anything?

I'm confused. You believe in an omnipotent God, but you don't believe he has any expectations of people? Based on this, I presume you are not a Christian?

You are wrong Bobo. God is incorporeal and we are not separate entities from God. We are like a cell within a body and some cells may be cancerous. Of course, I simplified things in a great deal for illustration.

If I understand what you're saying, correctly, you seem to be suggesting something akin to the cosmic consciousness of Buddhism. While, I appreciate your position, there is really no more evidence of that position than there is of an individual divinity.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I appreciate your appreciation, however if you look for evidence you are shit out of luck.

What evidence?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk