Got moral obligations?

[olavisjo]

If you believe that there exists an obligation to behave in a proper way then to whom or what is that obligation to?

[ChaosBorders]

This conclusion may not be wrong, but it is very hard to live with because it implies that, for example, we must tolerate the views of sexuality of the pedophile equally with the views of someone like Dr. Ruth Westheimer.

Although I do think moral nihilism is probably the most logical conclusion of atheism, I do have a point of contention:

I do not have to tolerate the sexuality of a pedophile unless I'm forced to. If there is no objective morality, then the only measure of morality is subjective and can only be forced upon me through the collective power of those who hold that view.

So if I do not like the pedophile, and I can kill the pedophile without anyone who cares catching me, I would certainly NOT have to tolerate the views of the pedophile. Such views might not be objectively wrong, but it really doesn't matter if I have the power to force my views upon said pedophile.

[olavisjo]

I do not usually visit or post in the “philosophy� sub-forum because I have a limited tolerance of conjecture and pontification – or anything else that cannot be verified with factual information and observation in the real world I inhabit. I make a limited exception here by invitation.

I don't think that there is any point in debating things that can be verified with factual information and observation. But rather it is the philosophical implications of those facts that make for good debate.
I find philosophy to be far more useful in discovering truth in our word than mere factual information. It is no coincidence that the highest degree that you can get in science is a PhD.

If you believe that there exists an obligation to behave in a proper way then to whom or what is that obligation to?

I do NOT do so from a sense of OBLIGATION, but on the basis of decisions that I make personally which evolve from my life experience and my personal value system.

The question was not 'is there a sense of obligation' but rather an actual obligation.
Your answer, if I understand you correctly, tells me that you believe there is no such obligation, so people can behave any way that they desire, and you choose to do so based on your personal value system. May I assume that you would have no problem with other people doing the same?

Repeated attempts to explain morality in regards to atheism seem to fall on deaf ears when we atheists show we can indeed have a valid, honorable, and legitimate moral ethos.

After all these discussions you are still missing my point. Even people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins can't see it either so don't feel bad. I do agree with you, that a person who maintains that there is no God can indeed have a valid, honorable, and legitimate moral ethos.
However, what I am saying is that there is nothing in a materialistic world to make an act right or wrong.
So if any person still believes that some acts are right or wrong, then they are either delusional or there exists something other than the material world that does make some acts right or wrong.

If you believe that there exists an obligation to behave in a proper way then to whom or what is that obligation to?

Ourselves, our families, society, and the world at large.

If our society decides that a race of people needs to be exterminated should we still obey their orders to do so or should our obligation be to a morality that says it is wrong to commit genocide?
I think that the basis for morality must transcend the authority of any and all persons. If there is no such basis, then there is no true morality and again we are free to do whatever we want to do.
Also the basis for morality must be authoritative, so that we really ought to obey it. It is fine for Rodney King to say 'Let's All Just Try To Get Along' but with no authority to back it up it is just a meaningless platitude.
The basis of morality must be binding on all people and groups of people regardless of when and where we are or how we feel about it.
This basis for morality can't be mistaken on what is moral.
So only when we have an omnipresent, eternal and ultimate authority as the basis of morality can we say that we do have a moral obligation to behave properly. So is there anything in this universe that can fill that requirement?

My belief is that human reason, intellect and social evolution are the underlying foundation for current morality.

Would you still say that if the Nazis had won the war and current morality was Nazi morality?

I do not have to tolerate the sexuality of a pedophile unless I'm forced to. If there is no objective morality, then the only measure of morality is subjective and can only be forced upon me through the collective power of those who hold that view.

So if I do not like the pedophile, and I can kill the pedophile without anyone who cares catching me, I would certainly NOT have to tolerate the views of the pedophile. Such views might not be objectively wrong, but it really doesn't matter if I have the power to force my views upon said pedophile.

You are right, in a world where you can do whatever you want to do, you would have no obligation to tolerate anything. But, just because you can do whatever you want to, does not mean that you must do it. Be smart about it, have the politicians do the dirty work for you, just petition them to make sex crimes against children a capital offense.

[BwhoUR]

My belief is that human reason, intellect and social evolution are the underlying foundation for current morality.

Would you still say that if the Nazis had won the war and current morality was Nazi morality?

You know what they say...the minute you say the word Nazi in a debate, you lose.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 12:

>snipping parts addressed to others at least for now<

Repeated attempts to explain morality in regards to atheism seem to fall on deaf ears when we atheists show we can indeed have a valid, honorable, and legitimate moral ethos.

After all these discussions you are still missing my point. Even people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins can't see it either so don't feel bad. I do agree with you, that a person who maintains that there is no God can indeed have a valid, honorable, and legitimate moral ethos.

I think it's fair to say I'm missing your point, but I also think you're missing mine. Morals are a reflection of individuals, and society. There's stuff "we've" declared wrong, for whatever reason.

However, what I am saying is that there is nothing in a materialistic world to make an act right or wrong.

Laws and the ostricizing from one's peers. Break a law, go to jail. Bed down with your buddy's old lady and face his wrath.

So if any person still believes that some acts are right or wrong, then they are either delusional or there exists something other than the material world that does make some acts right or wrong.

Folks who declare a god they can't show exists would be upset or reward the actions of humans ought not to ever mention the word 'delusional'.

If our society decides that a race of people needs to be exterminated should we still obey their orders to do so or should our obligation be to a morality that says it is wrong to commit genocide?

Ask some real old Germans, they had no problems doing it. (I was stationed in Germany for a good spell in the 80s and found them by and large a great bunch of good, decent folks who were ashamed of that part of their past)

We disagreed, we fought. We won. Our morals are now the "standard".

I think that the basis for morality must transcend the authority of any and all persons. If there is no such basis, then there is no true morality and again we are free to do whatever we want to do.

Run out in the street naked real quick, I'll wait.

Some folks'll see you and go about their day. Others'll call the cops. Some don't have a problem with a naked person, others do.

Also the basis for morality must be authoritative, so that we really ought to obey it.

The problem here is so many Christians thinking they are the authority.

The "authority" is within ourselves, and the collective society. Get enough folks to agree a hooter is a bad thing, and next thing you know folks can't show hooters on TV.

It is fine for Rodney King to say 'Let's All Just Try To Get Along' but with no authority to back it up it is just a meaningless platitude.

The "authority" here would be the need for so many folks living so close together to get along.

The basis of morality must be binding on all people and groups of people regardless of when and where we are or how we feel about it.

But it's not binding on all. It is binding on those who accept it, and as it relates to law.

I'm told I'm immoral because I have sex with chicks I'm not married to, sometimes even with more than one at a time. I say I'm moral because to heck with what a bunch of prudes think.

This basis for morality can't be mistaken on what is moral.

This is yet one more problem with those who espouse moral objectivity. So many of them seem utterly incapable of understanding that their opinion is just that.

So only when we have an omnipresent, eternal and ultimate authority as the basis of morality can we say that we do have a moral obligation to behave properly.

No. We all have our own "moral compass". Sometimes it lines up with others', sometimes it don't.

So is there anything in this universe that can fill that requirement?

No. What is moral one season may well be immoral the next.

[Abraxas]

You make an exceptionally large number of unsupported assumptions here olasvisjo.

Touching on a few of them, firstly, you imply the rejection of God implies a rejection of all non-materialistic entities when this is clearly not so. It is entirely consistant to both reject God exists and believe in an objective good. Secondly, you assert without evidence objective good must be an immaterial thing. A number of philosophies, such as Utilitarianism in it's many forms, hold them to be material properties of the world. You have given no reason to reject that an objective good might be or arise from material conditions. Thirdly, your argument for what morality is seems to hinge on the capacity of something to punish you for not obeying it. You then arbitrarilly leap to the conclusion this authority cannot be either a person or group of persons. You give no justification for why the capacity for punishment is required for morality nor why even were it humans cannot act as the judicial body.

Those alone sink your initial assertion, however, things get worse. You make the implicit assumption that the existence of God would solve this problem without justifying it. Why do we have any obligation to God? He created us? My parents created me, they don't get to set my moral code. He can beat me up? Lots of people can beat me up. Even more groupings of people can. On what basis do I have any obligation to obey God should he exist beyond simple "might makes right", an argument that applies equally well to Earthly authorities? Basically, you have constructed one great big subjective morality based on the unverifiable and arbitrary will of an equally unverifiable creature of sufficient power. How does the will of said creature obligate me to anything?

[ChaosBorders]

However, what I am saying is that there is nothing in a materialistic world to make an act right or wrong.

Laws and the ostricizing from one's peers. Break a law, go to jail. Bed down with your buddy's old lady and face his wrath.

If you're caught.

So if any person still believes that some acts are right or wrong, then they are either delusional or there exists something other than the material world that does make some acts right or wrong.

Folks who declare a god they can't show exists would be upset or reward the actions of humans ought not to ever mention the word 'delusional'.

Depends on what system of ethics you're using. In some systems saying something is 'right' or 'wrong' is just another way of 'I agree with that' or 'I don't like that'. In some systems it actually means something is right or wrong. If someone is trying to use a latter system, they're not really being any different than someone believing in God. Which usually makes them hypocrites if they're denouncing people for believing in a God they can't show to exist.

We disagreed, we fought. We won. Our morals are now the "standard".

It is rather the conclusion of there being no objective morality. Might (or cunning) makes right. If you can do it, and no one can stop you, there is no reason not to. Of course, if the person is in the minority and doesn't like what other people decide...tough luck for them.

It is fine for Rodney King to say 'Let's All Just Try To Get Along' but with no authority to back it up it is just a meaningless platitude.

The "authority" here would be the need for so many folks living so close together to get along.

Usually. Though occasionally some psychopath convinces people to give him enough power to derail that need in favor of whatever narcissistic goal he has.

This basis for morality can't be mistaken on what is moral.

This is yet one more problem with those who espouse moral objectivity. So many of them seem utterly incapable of understanding that their opinion is just that.

I mostly agree. Even if there is a truly objective morality, one could never really be certain what it was. Any statement to the contrary is opinion and probably pretty presumptuous.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 16:

Laws and the ostricizing from one's peers. Break a law, go to jail. Bed down with your buddy's old lady and face his wrath.

If you're caught.

Which indicates we are ultimately beholden to our own morality, with potential conflict with others' morality.

Folks who declare a god they can't show exists would be upset or reward the actions of humans ought not to ever mention the word 'delusional'.

Depends on what system of ethics you're using. In some systems saying something is 'right' or 'wrong' is just another way of 'I agree with that' or 'I don't like that'. In some systems it actually means something is right or wrong. If someone is trying to use a latter system, they're not really being any different than someone believing in God. Which usually makes them hypocrites if they're denouncing people for believing in a God they can't show to exist.

I was referring to the use of an ad hominem attack. Calling folks delusional is hardly conducive to civil debate. I agree I could have been more clear.

>on World War 2<
We disagreed, we fought. We won. Our morals are now the "standard".

It is rather the conclusion of there being no objective morality. Might (or cunning) makes right. If you can do it, and no one can stop you, there is no reason not to. Of course, if the person is in the minority and doesn't like what other people decide...tough luck for them.

Might makes right is indicative of subjective morality.

It is fine for Rodney King to say 'Let's All Just Try To Get Along' but with no authority to back it up it is just a meaningless platitude.

The "authority" here would be the need for so many folks living so close together to get along.

Usually. Though occasionally some psychopath convinces people to give him enough power to derail that need in favor of whatever narcissistic goal he has.

I was speaking about the particular scenario olavisjo presented.

This basis for morality can't be mistaken on what is moral.

This is yet one more problem with those who espouse moral objectivity. So many of them seem utterly incapable of understanding that their opinion is just that.

I mostly agree. Even if there is a truly objective morality, one could never really be certain what it was. Any statement to the contrary is opinion and probably pretty presumptuous.

Thank you.

[cnorman18]

Just for the record:

Lord Bertrand Russell, who was certainly no theist and even more certainly was no dummy, once remarked that though he couldn't prove that morality had an objective basis, he could not bring himself to believe that the only thing wrong with gratuituous cruelty was that he didn't like it. I would agree with that. The problem remains unsolved, as far as I can see.

That doesn't mean theists have some sort of advantage. Proving God, as we have seen here ad infinitum, is pretty clearly just as difficult, if not more so.

[olavisjo]

So if any person still believes that some acts are right or wrong, then they are either delusional or there exists something other than the material world that does make some acts right or wrong.

Folks who declare a god they can't show exists would be upset or reward the actions of humans ought not to ever mention the word 'delusional'.

I am sorry, I was using the word to describe a person who holds a false belief or opinion, but in looking it up it seems like it is more often used to describe a mental illness. So I will refrain from using the "D" word. In the above sentence the word would apply more to me than anyone else as I do hold the belief that some things are objectively right or wrong when there is no empirical evidence to show that to be the case. Just out of curiosity, does the use of that word by Richard Dawkins in the title of his best seller bother you as well?

I think it's fair to say I'm missing your point, but I also think you're missing mine. Morals are a reflection of individuals, and society. There's stuff "we've" declared wrong, for whatever reason.

I think that I understand your point. And I do agree with you 100%. Individuals and societies do have moral values for what ever reasons. Those reasons may include self interest, conscience, utility, tradition, guilt and a whole lot of other reasons. But there is no reason to think that those moral values are correct or it is even possible for a moral value to be correct. It just seems to me to be obvious that we can't just declare something right or wrong and it actually becomes right or wrong. Morality must be discovered, not just declared.

You make an exceptionally large number of unsupported assumptions here olasvisjo.

I am willing to try and support them.

Touching on a few of them, firstly, you imply the rejection of God implies a rejection of all non-materialistic entities when this is clearly not so.

Which non-materialistic entities are you referring to?
Things like math and language are non-materialistic entities but as far as I can tell they are irrelevant when looking for something that can be the basis of moral obligations.

It is entirely consistent to both reject God exists and believe in an objective good.

What would be the basis of such an objective good?

Secondly, you assert without evidence objective good must be an immaterial thing. A number of philosophies, such as Utilitarianism in it's many forms, hold them to be material properties of the world. You have given no reason to reject that an objective good might be or arise from material conditions.

You are right, I don't have any evidence for that. I just lack belief that moral values can arise from material conditions. My lack of belief in this is very similar to the people who lack belief in god/s. And I would put the burden of proof on the person who would claim that morals are material properties of the world.

Thirdly, your argument for what morality is seems to hinge on the capacity of something to punish you for not obeying it. You then arbitrarily leap to the conclusion this authority cannot be either a person or group of persons. You give no justification for why the capacity for punishment is required for morality nor why even were it humans cannot act as the judicial body.

Humans are not omniscient, so if someone commits an immoral act, like murder, in a way that nobody knows about it, then nothing bad will happen to that murderer. It would be like the only immoral act is getting caught.
It just seems to me to be obvious that if there is no punishment for doing something immoral then there would be no reason to refrain from doing so if it is what a person desires to do.

Those alone sink your initial assertion, however, things get worse. You make the implicit assumption that the existence of God would solve this problem without justifying it. Why do we have any obligation to God? He created us? My parents created me, they don't get to set my moral code.

You are equivocating the word "create". Your parents gave birth to you. And, even in this day and age, most children do have some sort of obligation to obey their parents.

He can beat me up? Lots of people can beat me up. Even more groupings of people can. On what basis do I have any obligation to obey God should he exist beyond simple "might makes right", an argument that applies equally well to Earthly authorities? Basically, you have constructed one great big subjective morality based on the unverifiable and arbitrary will of an equally unverifiable creature of sufficient power. How does the will of said creature obligate me to anything?

I never said that morality is the arbitrary will of God. The way that I understand it, Gods nature is perfect and it is his nature (not will) that determines what is moral.
You had an obligation to obey your parents rules if you wanted to live under their roof, I would say that the same applies to the alleged God, if you want to live under his roof you need to obey his rules, and of course, if there is no God then you are free to do whatever you want to do. Personally, I would not want to live anywhere else.

Just for the record:

Lord Bertrand Russell, who was certainly no theist and even more certainly was no dummy, once remarked that though he couldn't prove that morality had an objective basis, he could not bring himself to believe that the only thing wrong with gratuitous cruelty was that he didn't like it. I would agree with that. The problem remains unsolved, as far as I can see.

That doesn't mean theists have some sort of advantage. Proving God, as we have seen here ad infinitum, is pretty clearly just as difficult, if not more so.

The problem remains unsolved for some, but intuitively I am convinced that morality is real and based in God.
The advantage of the moral argument over all the others is that one can explain away the other arguments without a problem, but if you explain away morality, it is not possible to live as if morality did not exist. Every act you perform will require you to make a moral decision about whether or not you are doing the right thing.

[ChaosBorders]

The problem remains unsolved for some, but intuitively I am convinced that morality is real and based in God.
The advantage of the moral argument over all the others is that one can explain away the other arguments without a problem, but if you explain away morality, it is not possible to live as if morality did not exist. Every act you perform will require you to make a moral decision about whether or not you are doing the right thing.

That's not technically accurate. Moral Nihilism is the perspective there is no right or wrong, so someone using that perspective doesn't consider themselves as making moral decisions at all.