Morality exists without your God.

[History_Buff]

What makes the one more correct though? I would think that would require some kind of foundational beliefs which are just more opinions in the end.

Outcomes, with caveats.

 

[El_Machinae]

What makes the one more correct though? I would think that would require some kind of foundational beliefs which are just more opinions in the end.

Yes, they're 'just opinions', but you'll find greater agreement because they can be judged after the fact based on their outcomes.

As well, because the two participants are not only the people who're making the decisions, but suffering the consequences, their opinions on the topic are the only ones that matter.

One diet will be objectively superior to the other, based on the perceived outcomes.

 

[Synobun]

Outcomes, with caveats.

Or, in case you don't understand that,

Do something positive, more positive opportunities arise.

Do something negative, more negative opportunities arise.

For example, donating to the local soup kitchen will result in the following (and likely some more):

i. Increases morale for the volunteers there.
ii. Eases economic tension for the building owners.
iii. Provides meals to the unfortunate.
iv. Increases morale for the homeless that frequent the kitchen.
v. Improves the overall environment.

Pretty good things, yes?

Now let's move on to the negative.

For example, you shove a woman away from her stroller, take her baby out of it, and proceed to throw baby against the wall. This will result in the following (and likely some more):

i. Extreme trauma to the mother.
ii. Extreme trauma/fatality to the child.
iii. Destroy the overall environment of the location, due to the heinous act you have committed.
iv. Robbed someone of a new life.
v. Robbed a mother of loving her child throughout life.
vi. Traumatized all witnesses and also the people who would read/see it on the news.

Now that that's settled, tell me how this isn't objective and how, for some reason, the negative might actually be positive?

(This is directed to Adam, not you History, just sort of elaborating on your point)

 

[AdamGM]

Yes, they're 'just opinions', but you'll find greater agreement because they can be judged after the fact based on their outcomes.

As well, because the two participants are not only the people who're making the decisions, but suffering the consequences, their opinions on the topic are the only ones that matter.

One diet will be objectively superior to the other, based on the perceived outcomes.

What marks one as superior?

 

[Leoreth]

I definitely disagree since who's morals are we using? You do realise that the Nazi's used a set of moral when they were trying to make the world pure. Just because you have a set of morals doesn't make them the right ones.

Just because you believe in an imaginary friend that tells you these morals are correct doesn't make them correct.

Everyone has a different set of moral values and as a result of that we find in the space of a few decades one thing that was one considered moral is not consider immoral and vice versa. We change so much that it is pointless basing our moral system on what we think right, considering how fast it changes.

Except that's the only thing that's going to work!

Morals are a social phenomenon and thus to be determined by society. You're never going to convince everyone that the Christian God exists and should determine what is moral, so your approach is ultimately flawed. As is every approach that acts as if there are morals somewhere "out there" and we have to find out what they are.

 

[AdamGM]

Just because you believe in an imaginary friend that tells you these morals are correct doesn't make them correct.


Except that's the only thing that's going to work!

Morals are a social phenomenon and thus to be determined by society. You're never going to convince everyone that the Christian God exists and should determine what is moral, so your approach is ultimately flawed. As is every approach that acts as if there are morals somewhere "out there" and we have to find out what they are.

We arent talking about what the morals are, this thread was about their origin or foundation.

 

[AdamGM]

Or, in case you don't understand that,

Do something positive, more positive opportunities arise.

Do something negative, more negative opportunities arise.

For example, donating to the local soup kitchen will result in the following (and likely some more):

i. Increases morale for the volunteers there.
ii. Eases economic tension for the building owners.
iii. Provides meals to the unfortunate.
iv. Increases morale for the homeless that frequent the kitchen.
v. Improves the overall environment.

Pretty good things, yes?

Now let's move on to the negative.

For example, you shove a woman away from her stroller, take her baby out of it, and proceed to throw baby against the wall. This will result in the following (and likely some more):

i. Extreme trauma to the mother.
ii. Extreme trauma/fatality to the child.
iii. Destroy the overall environment of the location, due to the heinous act you have committed.
iv. Robbed someone of a new life.
v. Robbed a mother of loving her child throughout life.
vi. Traumatized all witnesses and also the people who would read/see it on the news.

Now that that's settled, tell me how this isn't objective and how, for some reason, the negative might actually be positive?

(This is directed to Adam, not you History, just sort of elaborating on your point)

You have described a very popular moral code (although sadly not universal).
This isn't really on point however.

 

[Leoreth]

That's a nonsensical question then (and I don't think the thread is about that).

Nobody "created" morals. Morals are, as I said, a social phenomenon. They are made and remade by all of us all the time.

 

[Synobun]

You have described a very popular moral code (although sadly not universal).
This isn't really on point however.

It is very on point. Explain to me how the negative is better than the positive.

Please.

Go on.

No, really. Go on.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Etymologically, morality comes from the Latin mores and only has to do with societal customs and personal habits rather than anything objectively right or wrong. Obviously, no religion or god is required in order for people to have habits (assuming that the people can exist at all without god.)

Ethics is the same, but the Greek ethica was often sort for ethika arete. The second word specifies that it deals not only with habits, but with good habits. The good ought to be the part emphasized.



Humans can certainly have ethics without basing them on religion. On many issues we can be reasonably certain what morals should be considered good. An omniscient being however would have infinitely greater knowledge of what constitutes goodness, and so should be able to formulate a better morality than mere mortals can.

 

[cardgame]

And yes, I am a moral realist.

Is that a more positive term for relativist or distinctly different?

 

[AdamGM]

It is very on point. Explain to me how the negative is better than the positive.

Please.

Go on.

No, really. Go on.

Calm down
It's not on point because this thread isn't about describing the contents of specific moral codes, that's all.

 

[Synobun]

Calm down
It's not on point because this thread isn't about describing the contents of specific moral codes, that's all.

You are explicitly avoiding the concept of justification for what you said.

 

[Dachs]

man why can't you loons deride the notion of morality as a thing that can only come from God without making the equally stupid error of moral relativism in the process

 

[Leoreth]

How can you talk about moral systems without considering their content?

Asking to ignore the content of moral systems is just an underhand way to say that all which matters in morality is what the authority justifying your morality is. Which isn't fair in a thread that is about the question whether an authority is actually necessary.

 

[Integral]

Is that a more positive term for relativist or distinctly different?

Moral realism is literally about as far from relativism as you can possibly get.

Of course, I marry that realism with a layer of radical subjectivism. (Briefly, I think there are some moral statements which express propositions, which have truth-values, but I am skeptical that humans can uncover such values. Like I said, I'm not orthodox in any respect.)

 

[duckstab]

Just because you believe in an imaginary friend that tells you these morals are correct doesn't make them correct.


Except that's the only thing that's going to work!

Morals are a social phenomenon and thus to be determined by society. You're never going to convince everyone that the Christian God exists and should determine what is moral, so your approach is ultimately flawed. As is every approach that acts as if there are morals somewhere "out there" and we have to find out what they are.

Or, to put it another way, arguing about whether a set of morals is "correct" is meaningless because science and ethics are orthogonal domains of human inquiry. Moral judgments aren't "true" or "false", but rather "right" or "wrong". And the reason it's a social phenomenon is that morality deals with nothing other than how members of a society should behave individually or collectively.

Now, there have been many attempts to reduce ethics to science, such as utilitarianism or sociobiology. But IMO they all come up short because in the end they still leave basic moral questions unanswered. Why would it be better to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number? Why would it be better to maximize the survival chances of my genes/memes? Ultimately we're left with taking some things as axiomatic, and that's usually a function of the society we live in more than anything else.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

man why can't you loons deride the notion of morality as a thing that can only come from God without making the equally stupid error of moral relativism in the process

What is so stupid about it?

 

[AdamGM]

How can you talk about moral systems without considering their content?

Asking to ignore the content of moral systems is just an underhand way to say that all which matters in morality is what the authority justifying your morality is. Which isn't fair in a thread that is about the question whether an authority is actually necessary.

No, I wasn't implying that authority is all that matters, but I do believe that the authority of morality changes the outcome of the discussion and ultimately the definitions of right and wrong.

You're never going to convince everyone that the Christian God exists and should determine what is moral, so your approach is ultimately flawed. As is every approach that acts as if there are morals somewhere "out there" and we have to find out what they are.

How then does it work for you?

 

[Synobun]

No, I wasn't implying that authority is all that matters, but I do believe that the authority of morality changes the outcome of the discussion and ultimately the definitions of right and wrong.

I suppose you are vehemently against self-determination?