The Moral Lowdown

[SallyF]

Is this Christian claim arrogant ?

[Willum]

[Replying to Overcomer]

And there you are, with no reason to suspect God is right...
Think big picture.

[Diagoras]

Willum wrote:

Having might, does not make one morally right.

I agree with you, Willum, and yet, without objective universal moral values, that's just what we're left with. 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.

<bolding mine>

By that rationale, the rules and values made up by God are also relative. Its just that supposedly, theres no-one more powerful than he is.

Just because hes the mightiest doesnt mean hes the rightiest (sorry, couldnt resist).

[Diagoras]

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 say it is because of human evolution. In our species distant past, selecting a mate who exhibited stronger social cooperation and higher emotional intelligence would, over time, result in their descendants having the capacity to understand rudimentary moral values, and the individuals of the species would come to realise that their individual conformity with those tribal values would be of greater benefit to them, than if they acted in an every man for himself way.

We see this behaviour in other primates, with grooming behaviour and sharing food. Altruism can be proven to have a strong genetic origin. There is nothing strange or controversial about that, nor does there need to be some divine lawgiver to explain where morals come from.

[Zzyzx]

.

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

There is no such thing as 'Atheist morality', 'Atheist ethic' or 'Atheist ethical maxim'

Atheism means Without belief in gods, full stop. There is no flag pole or idol to rally around -- nothing comparable to Theist 'gods' -- no Ten Commandments -- or 600+ rules of Judaism " or dictates from the Koran. Atheists are individuals who choose to NOT follow the (religious) leader. Many actually think for themselves.

Those who worship gods and claim to derive their ethics / morals from a supernatural entity may have difficulty understanding that societies evolve and teach citizens what is acceptable behavior (no gods required).

Is there any atheist ethic that is:

a) universal
b) timeless
c) unchanging?

There is NO ethic that is universal, timeless, unchanging. Ethic means: rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad. /www.merriam-webster.com

Universal means applicable everywhere, all times. Timeless means forever the same. Unchanging means unaltered through time and place.

I challenge anyone to identify an ethic that meets the criteria " everywhere, all the time, unchanging.

[Purple Knight]

Is this Christian claim arrogant ?

No, I don't think it's arrogant. I think it's based on a sound principle that morality is the dictate of the one with the highest moral authority.

We all follow this dictate. We believe a murderer who says murder is permissible has lower moral authority than we do, because we will impose our will on him that he not murder.

I do believe the claim is wrong because there are clearly high moral authorities among people. In absence of god, perhaps the Pope is god. In absence of the Pope, perhaps Ned Flanders is god.

I challenge anyone to identify an ethic that meets the criteria " everywhere, all the time, unchanging.

I'll take that challenge.

My position is that this is the ethic that has never changed:

The one with the highest moral authority is right about morality, so do what he says.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 22 by Diagoras]

That is a brilliant observation!

God does not seem consistent even in his own morality, and the examples of his ebbing and flowing morals are from virtually every tale involving him.

If he does not have any kind of absolute, according to any description of him, then even those floating principles of right and wrong, are useless to address.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 4 by 1213]

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

I don't know how you can determine objective morals with God when everything allegedly from that deity is filtered through the hands of human intermediaries. What we really have is morality established by humans which is then attributed to God.

[Bust Nak]

Would it not be arrogant to assume that the individual is the sole arbiter of right and wrong?

No, because every individual gets to do this.

What gives him or her the right or ability?

Biology did. It gave us our brains, we use that to form opinions.

Let me put it another way. Would it be arrogant to say that a specific doctor holds the cure for a specific illness?

Depends if that specific doctor holds the cure for a specific illness.

So that means that, if a pedophile lived next door to you, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

No, it does not mean that at all, I would definitely have a problem with it. Recall what you actually stated, you said if a pedophile kidnapped a three-year-old and brutalized that child, then a subjectivist would be outraged because it is never right in any culture or at any time period. That is what I wouldn't do. Instead I would be outraged because it is not right in this culture at this time period. See the difference?

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?

No, instead I'd have a problem in Nazi Germany and would have minded that millions of Jews were murdered because I believe that morality is relative and, as such, morality is merely an opinion and you can say that somebody else's moral choices are right or wrong, and also different. That is really the way I live. Really.

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.

Wrong again. Moral relativity dictates no such thing.

But other worldviews contain an element of morality.

What do you mean "but?" Many naturalistic worldviews contain an element of morality. Mine does, for example.

Atheists have to borrow from religion to get moral standards whether they like it or admit it or not.

Stop stealing credit from things we've came up with. It's one thing to say theists came up with their own moral standard. It's quite another to say we didn't.

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

I had a quick glance at this article, not seeing anything relevant to your claim that atheists are borrowing from religion apart from the bit about moral law being written on our hearts. Surely there is more to your argument then "the Bible says it, that settles it?"

It's bad because those in power can inflict their ideas of right and wrong, good and bad on those who are powerless.

Same objection as before, that's the same with or without God.

Since human beings differ about what is right and wrong, how do we decide who has the correct idea?

Your question is malformed. There is not such thing as "correct" in subjective topics. I am not correct for liking vanilla ice-cream over chocolate. I am going to answer another question: "how do we decide who has the right idea" instead...

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?

Each individual decide for themselves, going by their own feelings or preference.

Again, think of Hitler and the Nazis. Wouldn't you stand up to them?

I would like to think I would, but who knows when they have all the guns. But that's kinda missing the point, whether I would stand up to them, is a matter of my courage. We are talking about morality here, suffice to say that in my opinion, they are wrong, even if I keep that opinion to myself due to fear.

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."

No, I definitely wouldn't say that.

If you take moral relativism to its logical conclusion, that's what you end up with.

Why would I end up with that? Let me offer you another opportunity to explain your rationale step by step.

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?

Our opinion of course. That's 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?

By checking if your own opinion matches your favorite moral standard. Which would trivially match, unless one holds contradictory ideas.

My apologies for not being more clear. I am saying that human beings, being made in the image of God...

I don't really care about that, telling me where you think morality came from doesn't answer my question. You stated that morality can't come from human beings given a naturalistic worldview, as everything just is without inherent right or wrong. I want you to run through your thought process.

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?

Me. I am happy to step if, if you can't or don't want to say who has or hasn't evolved badly.

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.

That wasn't the whole of your statement, show me where he stated that given the above, we then have no right to say that the pedophile is wrong. That's the bit I was referring to as a common misconception.

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.

You keep saying "logical conclusion," how exactly does the premise "our behaviour is part of who we are at our core," get you to your conclusion that "we have no right to say that the pedophile is wrong?" This is the bit you have to justify because Dawkins said no such thing.

As I said, in a naturalistic world, there just is. How do we criticize what just is?

Surely this question wasn't meant as your argument for getting from the above premise to your conclusion? That you don't know how we criticize what just is given a naturalistic world, therefore we cannot criticize what just is? As an argument, it's fails as argument from ignorance fallacy.

If it wasn't an rhetorical question, then the answer is quite simply, by forming an negative opinion on it. That's how we criticize what just is.

Once again, I say that people who espouse moral relativism never live out that belief.

That's because the belief that we have no right to criticize what just is, is not part of moral relativism. Moral relativism (minus this misconception) is easy to live by, I do it naturally.

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.

Let me turn that hypothetical example into a concrete one: I would tell you that you are 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.

Always you say? False by counter-example: This moral relativist is not arguing that. Instead I am arguing that my own beliefs about right and wrong are my favorite and that you should do what I say. Don't particularly care if you agree with my opinion or not as long as you do what I say you should do.

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

Perhaps you should review this primer again. This author didn't make the mistake you have. She seemed to understand that moral relativism doesn't not dictate nor imply that one do not have the right to criticize others.

If you only answer one thing in this somewhat long post, it is this: Justify your repeated claim that moral relativism dictates that relativists do not have the right to criticize others.

[1213]

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.

So, if God is not the one that defines objective, non-changing morality, what would be the other option that is not changing by human opinions?

[1213]

I don't know how you can determine objective morals with God when everything allegedly from that deity is filtered through the hands of human intermediaries. What we really have is morality established by humans which is then attributed to God.

Even if we would believe that, we have God (at least as concept) that tells for example that it is right to love others. That doesnt change by human opinions, but is fixed idea and therefore objective.