The Moral Lowdown

[SallyF]

Is this Christian claim arrogant ?

[Overcomer]

Willum wrote:

To repeat, even with a god of some sort, you still are left with moral relativism.
Gods' opinion about morality DOES NOT constitute a absolute one.

But with God, it isn't a matter of opinion. He himself is holy, meaning that he is separate, apart from us, unlike any other. He is not like man (Num. 23:19) and he doesn't have the sinful nature of man. He created us and he created the standards by which we are to live based on his unchanging sin-free nature. Because he does not change, his understanding of right and wrong, good and evil does not change. His laws are in place for all humankind forever. They are not based on whim or fancy, but on what he knows is best for us.

I am sure there are atheists who would like to make their own ideas of right and wrong absolute, not just for them, but everybody according to what they want out of others and out of life.

But I return to my example of the pedophile who brutalizes toddlers. Do you think, Willum, that it is ever right to do so? If you do, God help you! If you don't, then you do indeed follow a universal, absolute, objective moral value that exists throughout history in all civilizations. Where does that understanding of right and wrong come from? As I said, it can't come from human beings even if atheists insist that it does because, according to their naturalistic worldview, everything just is and there is no right or wrong inherent in anything. If we are all just dancing to our DNA as Richard Dawkins claims then we have no right to say that the pedophile is wrong. Yet we inherently know that he is. How is that so? I say it is because we are made in the image of God and we have some idea of right and wrong, albeit marred by sin.

I suggest reading C. S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man He sets this out far better than I ever could.

[Bust Nak]

So the first few posts here are a concession that atheist morality is circumstantial and relativistic?

Resident moral subjectivist here. Morality is circumstantial and relativistic full stop, adding a god here doesn't help. When is it okay to take a slave? According to the Bible, when you win a war, when the slave is a foreigner. Oh but that's only for Israelites, Christians don't do that anymore. So much for universal, timeless or unchanging.

Or even any atheist ethical maxim that is shared with Theists?

Golden rule maybe?

If so, wouldn't that fit the criteria of "objective morality"?

Nah. It is a maxim only because I, a subject, says it is.

[Elijah John]

Or even any atheist ethical maxim that is shared with Theists?

Golden rule maybe?

If so, wouldn't that fit the criteria of "objective morality"?

Nah. It is a maxim only because I, a subject, says it is.

On the Golden Rule we agree. But we disagree on whether it's subjective or not.

Also, is "the ends justifies the means" part of relativistic, circumstantial and subjective atheist morality? General question, not just to you BN.

[Bust Nak]

It isn't any more arrogant to say that objective universal moral values exist and do so because of God than to say that I have a pail full of water and the reason it's full is because I filled it in my kitchen sink. Where's the arrogance in that?

There is arrogance in presuming you have a pail full of water and that it's full because you filled it when it's not clear if any of that is true.

Nor does it imply that those who don't believe in God can't do deeds that are morally right. They just don't recognize where that conscience comes from.

That's the important factor.

Even those who insist that they believe morality is relative never live that way. They can't, because it isn't possible.

False by counter-example. I do live as if morality is relative, more accurately as if morality is subjective.

If a pedophile kidnapped a three-year-old and brutalized that child, those who insist that everyone is free to choose what is morally right and wrong, whether others agree with it or not, will be outraged by this fact because, quite simply, it is NEVER right to do that to child, not in any culture in any time period.

Again, not me, I don't do that.

As soon as someone insists morality is relative, then they remove their right to criticize anybody for doing anything, however heinous.

Not so. More below...

If we are all the results of random chance, then human beings are really no more important or special than a housefly or a snail. We can all be squashed with impunity because, with a naturalistic worldview to which many atheists subscribe, there is no ought. There's just is. And you can't get an ought from an is which is, of course, one of the things that makes naturalism not just a poor, but untenable lens through which to view the world.

You can't get an ought from an is full stop. Naturalistic worldview or not.

Those with the most power get to make the rules and decide what they think is good or bad, right or wrong. That's the problem with relativism.

How is this a problem when those without power also get to decide what they think is good or bad, right or wrong?

But I return to my example of the pedophile who brutalizes toddlers. Do you think, Willum, that it is ever right to do so? If you do, God help you!

What do you mean if? Didn't you just claim that it's impossible? You are undermining your own thesis with this question.

Where does that understanding of right and wrong come from?

It came from us human beings.

it can't come from human beings even if atheists insist that it does because, according to their naturalistic worldview, everything just is and there is no right or wrong inherent in anything.

That appears to be a non-sequitur, how did you jump from the premise "there is no inherent right or wrong" to "right or wrong cannot have came from human?"

If we are all just dancing to our DNA as Richard Dawkins claims then we have no right to say that the pedophile is wrong.

This is such a common misconception. Would you like to have a go at justifying that claim?

[Bust Nak]

Also, is "the ends justifies the means" part of relativistic, circumstantial and subjective atheist morality? General question, not just to you BN.

It is when I say it is, it isn't when I say it isn't. That's what relativistic, circumstantial and subjective morality entails, every subject decides for themselves, depending on the circumstances.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 11 by Overcomer]

He stated standards that excuse rape, slavery and gave an instruction-book for when genocide is appropriate.

Using claims of what an arbitrary standard of morality claims is an absolute standard of morality is self-defeating.

It is as valuable as me claiming to be an absolute standard of morality because I wrote a book saying so.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 3 by bluegreenearth]

So the first few posts here are a concession that atheist morality is circumstantial and relativistic? Correct me if I am wrong.

Is there any atheist ethic that is:

a) universal
b) timeless
c) unchanging?

Or even any atheist ethical maxim that is shared with Theists?

If so, wouldn't that fit the criteria of "objective morality"?

There is no such thing as an atheist morality or ethic. Many atheists might subscribe to a secular humanist morality and ethic, though.

One criteria for what makes something objective is when its properties do not change in accordance to anyone's opinion. For example, the force of gravity is objective because its properties do not depend upon the opinion of the person interacting with it. Because the properties of gravity are not contingent upon anyone's opinion, it consistently has the same effect on everyone and everything interacting with it. Consequently, everyone's concept of gravity is identical. If morality is objective in the same sense, then we would expect its properties to consistently affect everyone and everything in the same way. In other words, if God directly imposes his morality on us in the same way that he imposes gravity on us, then the effect of morality would be the same for everyone. Is this what we observe? No. Different groups of people have different concepts of morality which shouldn't be possible if morality is objective like gravity. So, morality cannot be objective in that sense.

The only other sense in which morality could be thought of as objective is if it can be directly associated with something else that is objective. For instance, the objective consequence of action "A" is always "B" and the objective consequence of action "C" is always "D." If we directly associate morality with those objective consequences such that it is objectively moral to perform action "A" because it always results in "B" and it is always objectively immoral to perform action "C" because it always results in "D," then it seems morality could be objective by association in that sense. Therefore, when you base morality in something else that is objective, morality becomes objective only in the sense that its properties are fixed by that particular objective thing. However, it is ultimately subjective in the sense that you've agreed to associate morality with that particular objective thing for your own subjective reasons.

We can see how this applies to the claim that morality is objective if God exists. A morality based on the concept of an objective God would only be objective in the sense that its properties are established by that particular God concept and would not change according to the opinion of anyone who subscribes to that morality. At the same time, when you base morality on a particular God concept, you are agreeing to the conditions set by that concept. However, all people are not necessarily compelled to associate morality with that particular concept of an objective God. Some people could associate morality with a different concept of an objective God while other people may associate morality with some objective secular concept. Nevertheless, as long as morality is associated with something objective such that its properties do not change according to the opinions of anyone who subscribes to that moral system, it would seem to qualify as objective by association. Of course, I'm open to considering another interpretation.

[bluegreenearth]

I dont think it is arrogant, especially because I dont know how you could determine objective moral without God.

Something is determined to be objective when its properties do not change in accordance to anyone's opinion. For example, the force of gravity is objective because its properties do not depend upon the opinion of the person interacting with it. Because the properties of gravity are not contingent upon anyone's opinion, it consistently has the same effect on everyone and everything interacting with it. Consequently, everyone's concept of gravity is identical. If morality is objective in the same sense, then we would expect its properties to consistently affect everyone and everything in the same way. Is this what we observe? No. Different groups of people have different concepts of morality which shouldn't be possible if morality is objective like gravity. So, morality cannot be objective in that sense.

The only other sense in which morality could be thought of as objective is if it can be directly associated with something else that is objective. For instance, the objective consequence of action "A" is always "B" and the objective consequence of action "C" is always "D." If we directly associate morality with those objective consequences such that it is objectively moral to perform action "A" because it always results in "B" and it is always objectively immoral to perform action "C" because it always results in "D," then it seems morality could be objective by association in that sense. Therefore, when you base morality in something else that is objective, morality becomes objective only in the sense that its properties are fixed by that particular objective thing. However, it is ultimately subjective in the sense that you've agreed to associate morality with that particular objective thing for your own subjective reasons.

We can see how this applies to the claim that morality is objective if God exists. A morality based on the concept of an objective God would only be objective in the sense that its properties are established by that particular God concept and would not change according to the opinion of anyone who subscribes to that morality. At the same time, when you base morality on a particular God concept, you are agreeing to the conditions set by that concept. However, all people are not necessarily compelled to associate morality with that particular concept of an objective God. Some people could associate morality with a different concept of an objective God while other people may associate morality with some objective secular concept. Nevertheless, as long as morality is associated with something objective such that its properties do not change according to the opinions of anyone who subscribes to that moral system, it would seem to qualify as objective by association. So, as this demonstrates, a God is not required for us to determine an objective morality.

[Overcomer]

Let me first of all define moral relativism: A moral relativist holds the view that there are no morally objective right or wrong answers that apply in every time, in every place, and to every person. Given that, here is my response to you, Bust Nak.

Bust Nak wrote:

There is arrogance in presuming you have a pail full of water and that it's full because you filled it when it's not clear if any of that is true.

But it is clear to many, if not you. Would it not be arrogant to assume that the individual is the sole arbiter of right and wrong? What gives him or her the right or ability?

Let me put it another way. Would it be arrogant to say that a specific doctor holds the cure for a specific illness? Even if you yourself didn't know this doctor, who he was or where he lived or how to find him, would it still be arrogant to say he exists and possesses the cure?

I said that nobody who claims to be a moral relativist actually lives that way and Bust Nak responded:

False by counter-example. I do live as if morality is relative, more accurately as if morality is subjective.

So that means that, if a pedophile lived next door to you, you wouldn't have a problem with it. You'd be fine with him brutalizing toddlers. Or you'd be fine with a man raping your mother because morality is subjective and relative and if that's what that man thought was the right thing to do, who was to say differently? You'd have been fine in Nazi Germany and wouldn't have minded at all that millions of Jews were murdered because you believe that morality is relative and, as such, morality is merely an opinion and you can't say that somebody else's moral choices are right or wrong, just different. Is that really the way you live? Really? Because you see, the issue isn't that you yourself would absolutely NOT do things that you think are wrong, like molesting a child. The issue is that you don't have the right to tell anybody else that the things they are doing are wrong because moral relativity dictates that you can't.

Bust Nak wrote:

You can't get an ought from an is full stop. Naturalistic worldview or not.

But other worldviews contain an element of morality. Christianity contains an element of morality. Mormonism contains an element of morality. Islam contains an element of morality. And all ideas about morality in religious belief systems, be they right or wrong, stem from their idea of who God is and what he demands. Naturalism contains NO element of morality. Things just are. There's no right or wrong to them. Atheists have to borrow from religion to get moral standards whether they like it or admit it or not. See here:

https://world.wng.org/2015/02/frank_tur ... f_atheists

I said that, if morality is relative, then those who with the power get to decide what is right or wrong, good or bad, and Bust Nak responded:

How is this a problem when those without power also get to decide what they think is good or bad, right or wrong?

It's bad because those in power can inflict their ideas of right and wrong, good and bad on those who are powerless. This means Hitler and the Nazis could murder six million Jews as well as blacks and the disabled and anybody who stood in their way because they had the power to do so. The same is true of all the godless dictators who ever lived -- Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc. It leads to the belief that might is right -- and, of course, it isn't always.

I wrote:

But I return to my example of the pedophile who brutalizes toddlers. Do you think, Willum, that it is ever right to do so? If you do, God help you!

Bust Nak responded:

What do you mean if? Didn't you just claim that it's impossible? You are undermining your own thesis with this question.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant was this: If somebody really believes it's okay to brutalize toddlers, then they really do need God to show them the wrongness of it and deliver them from the evil that possesses them.

I asked:

Where does that understanding of right and wrong come from?

Bust Nak responded:

It came from us human beings.

Since human beings differ about what is right and wrong, how do we decide who has the correct idea? Do you choose it depending on what is going to benefit you the most? What if what one person chooses seems right to you, but it hurts somebody else? If the majority wanted it, would you still go along with them? Again, think of Hitler and the Nazis. Wouldn't you stand up to them? Or would you just say, "Well, I wouldn't do what they're doing, but if they think it's the right thing, then they can go ahead and do it." If you take moral relativism to its logical conclusion, that's what you end up with.

And if we have just evolved by random chance, what would make one person's idea of right and wrong really BE right and wrong? How could you trust one person over another? It would boil down to your own opinions, but how do you know your own opinions on the issues are right?

Bust Nake wrote:

That appears to be a non-sequitur, how did you jump from the premise "there is no inherent right or wrong" to "right or wrong cannot have came from human?

My apologies for not being more clear. I am saying that human beings, being made in the image of God, have some reflection or echo of right and wrong in them. But they have been born with sin natures. Therefore, the correct idea of right and wrong has been damaged by sin. This means that, while some people may do good deeds, it's because of God and HIS sense of right and wrong. However, the person who believes in a naturalistic worldview has nothing in which to ground his/her ideas of right and wrong because he's just an evolved creature and who is to say that he didn't evolve badly or incorrectly?

I wrote:

If we are all just dancing to our DNA as Richard Dawkins claims then we have no right to say that the pedophile is wrong.

This is such a common misconception. Would you like to have a go at justifying that claim?

I don't have to justify it. Dawkins is the one who made the statement. He's the one who said we behave the way we're programmed by our DNA. In other words, whatever behaviour we manifest is part and parcel of who we are, how we evolved, at the very core of our being. If you take that to its logical conclusion, that means that we aren't responsible for the way we evolved and have no control over it or the ability to change it. As I said, in a naturalistic world, there just is. How do we criticize what just is?

Once again, I say that people who espouse moral relativism never live out that belief. For example, if I say that homosexuality is a sin, the moral relativist who believes it isn't will immediately jump on top of me and tell me that I'm wrong. But true moral relativism allows people to believe whatever they want about morality. It's nothing more than choosing which kind of ice cream you prefer. Yet moral relativists ALWAYS argue that their own beliefs about right and wrong are absolutely true and that I must agree with them.

For more, see here:

https://www.str.org/blog/a-primer-on-mo ... mFlP3I3kdU

[Overcomer]

In response to my statement that God, being holy and wholly other, is the only being capable of determining right and wrong based on his sinless character, Willum wrote:

He stated standards that excuse rape, slavery and gave an instruction-book for when genocide is appropriate.

Thank you for providing an example of what I stated above -- that even a person who claims to be a moral relativist thinks in terms of absolute moral standards. Moral relativism means that we are all free to choose what we think is right or wrong according to our own ideas about it. Yet here you are, Willum, attacking God because you think his moral standards are wrong. In other words, you're arguing that what you believe about right and wrong are ABSOLUTELY right and that God doesn't line up with your own standards -- and you think he should!.

But if you were a true moral relativist, the best you could say is, "Well, I wouldn't do any of those things. But God has the right to do what he wants based on his own ideas about morality even if they differ from mine." That's what moral relativism is.

Like I said, when it comes down to specific examples, moral relativists always end up arguing that their own beliefs about morality are absolute and the rest of us, including God, should agree with them.