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]

If there is no God, then there is no right and wrong, it is that simple.

No objective right and wrong, technically. Subjectively people can declare whatever they want right or wrong, and if enough of them agree to force other people to follow it then that becomes the norm.

[Crazy Ivan]

I suddenly realized I'm arguing with a 50-year-old fundamentalist... see ya!

[bernee51]

People have different reactions to certain behaviors. To some men, humiliation of women is a natural consequence of their "superiority". To others, given PERCEIVED equality, it is immoral. The morality of the issue is RELATIVE to how you THINK about women. The same applies to any other FEELING or REACTION.

"The morality of the issue is RELATIVE to how you THINK about women."
Would you say that it is okay to rape a woman if a person THINKS it is okay to rape a woman?

No matter what we may think of it now...has it ALWAYS. across all time and cultures, been NOT OK to rape?

If you can show this to be the case then you have shown and 'absolute' moral truth.

[Abraxas]

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.

Mathematics and language are systems, not entities. What I was referring to were things like the Platonic form good, Kant's categorical imperative, and any of the other assorted moral fixtures that exist as objective good that is independent of any kind of divine being. Whether such an entity exists and where it is enforceable are two independent questions.

I am not sure that I understand what you mean by "entity".

Entity would refer to an object, abstract or concrete. Systems are interactions between entities. Four is an entity, math is a system.

To me, Kant's categorical imperative is just a formula for determining what is and is not moral. Very similar to a mathematical formula to determine something like the location of a canon ball in flight.

Yes and no. A directive is an abstract object, the application of it would be a system.

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?

A characteristic of the physical world per utilitarianism or objectivism, or perhaps an abstract object such as the above platonic form.

Would you be a little more specific about this characteristic of the physical world. And why should I alter my behaviour because of some abstract object that has no ability to influence me?

The objective capacity to measure human happiness, freedom, and quality of life. How does that matter? If God's punishment were not enough to motivate you to obey morality, does that mean objective morality no longer exists because you do not feel compelled to obey it?

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.

Then your argument is already lost. The whole premise was that a lack of God implied a lack of objective morality. If you cede the possibility morality can exist independent of God, even if it is on the individual claiming it does to prove it, then your argument is no longer valid as the conclusion no longer follows from the premises.

I have never heard a good argument to show morality can exist independent of God. So I feel justified to believe that none exists, same as I feel justified to believe that there are no teapots orbiting Mars.

Except you already admitted it can exist independently of God, you simply said you see no evidence it does. If it can exist independently, God is not required.

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.

A number of points here. Firstly, that is a contingent fact. At some future point it may be entirely possible to always determine with perfect accuracy who killed who and punish accordingly. Secondly, you are still no closer to defining morality. All you have thus far done is define a moral code as "that which God punishes you for is bad". If the whole criteria is avoiding punishment, you open a rather large can of worms with governments issuing punishments for perceived moral deficiencies or even all knowing, or mostly knowing beings that issue punishment on whimsy or appalling codes of conduct, like slaughtering children to make a point with the local government, but I digress.

Indeed, your argument seems remarkably similar to what you claim mine was, that the only immoral act is getting caught. Murder isn't wrong in and of itself, murder is wrong because God sees it and punishes you for it.

If at some future point it will be possible to always determine with perfect accuracy who killed who and punish accordingly, then whoever has this ability (omniscience) will fit my definition of God. Therefore God would exist.

So if I could develop a machine to punch a hole in time and let me observe and follow someone or something with perfect accuracy, thus allowing me to trace back any crime to the source and then follow the criminal to their present location, I would be God rather than a human with a very powerful toy?

My definition of a moral code is not "that which God punishes you for is bad". It is that behaviour which is not in God's nature is bad, and God will administer justice.

What makes his nature objectively good? His capacity to punish you for not matching it?

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.

What obligation? Where does this obligation come from? How does this obligation enforced? How can one be obligated to do something they do not agree to? What part of any of these answers requires a God to make these obligations legit?

Also, I do not consider it equivocation. I consider the two the same.

The obligation to obey parents is the same as all obligations, in Christianity it is enumerated in the ten commandments as an obligation to God.

I don't recall signing the ten commandments or agreeing to them. Someone telling me, even God, that I am obligated to do something does not make me obligated to do it. God made me with free will, according to the majority of Christian theology, a free agent. If he wanted something obliged to him, he should have made something mechanical.

The meaning of create and give birth do overlap in some situations. For example...

Bill gave birth to Microsoft.
Bill created Microsoft.

The terms are synonymous.
But when talking about God creating humans we are referring to intent and design of humans not just bringing forth from the birth canal. It is possible for a woman to be entirely comatose through the entire process and I would not doubt that may have even happened in some care facility somewhere.

Fair enough. We seem to be drifting off point on this one and so unless you believe this serves some purpose going forward, the debate between birth and create, I am going to let this topic drop.

I never said that morality is the arbitrary will of God. The way that I understand it, I have never claimed God cannot issue reward and punishment as he sees fit. However, what we are talking about here is an objective moral truth, not merely obey the rules of an authority figure. My parents very well could insisted I sacrifice a puppy on an effigy of Gandhi on every day of the month and year that is a prime number while reciting the words to "I am the very model of the modern major general" backwards in order to live under their roof, they could have punished me or kicked me out if I did not. However, had they done so that would not have made it a moral obligation to do so, moral being the key word. You have not made the case yet that the capacity to kick my butt gives one moral authority over me.

I am not trying to make the case that the ability to punish, gives someone moral authority.
I am saying that moral truth alone does not create a moral obligation.
The basis of morality must know all moral truth and have the ability to enforce all moral actions. Otherwise moral obligations become moot.

I disagree. There exists an important distinction between obligation and compulsion. If I agree to do something, I have an obligation to live up to my word, however, I may or not have the compulsion to depending on other circumstances. If you want to say the compulsion goes away without God, that is one argument, but to say we lack the obligation is quite another.

Just imagine a nation that dismisses all law enforcement personnel (due to budget problem). All the laws would still be on the books, but violators of the law would never be apprehended and punished. So the laws of that nation might as well not even exist.

This aptly demonstrates my point. The laws (morals) still exist independent of police (God). We, as citizens (humans) are still obligated to follow those laws (morals). That we will not be punished by the police (God) does not make our behavior any less illegal (immoral).

[JoeyKnothead]

People have different reactions to certain behaviors. To some men, humiliation of women is a natural consequence of their "superiority". To others, given PERCEIVED equality, it is immoral. The morality of the issue is RELATIVE to how you THINK about women. The same applies to any other FEELING or REACTION.

"The morality of the issue is RELATIVE to how you THINK about women."
Would you say that it is okay to rape a woman if a person THINKS it is okay to rape a woman?

No matter what we may think of it now...has it ALWAYS. across all time and cultures, been NOT OK to rape?

If you can show this to be the case then you have shown an 'absolute' moral truth.

I have repeatedly, for over a year, asked olavisjo to present just one example of an "objective moral value". To this date what few have been offered were not shown to be objective.

All we get is variations of "God don't like it".

[olavisjo]

I have repeatedly, for over a year, asked olavisjo to present just one example of an "objective moral value". To this date what few have been offered were not shown to be objective.

All we get is variations of "God don't like it".

I am not sure of what you mean by an example of an objective moral value?
Would gravity be an example of an objective law of physics or would 2 + 2 = 4 be an example of an objective mathematical truth?

[Crazy Ivan]

I am not sure of what you mean by an example of an objective moral value?

What do you care what joey means by it? If YOU think there is such a thing, give an example.

[Goat]

I am not sure of what you mean by an example of an objective moral value?

What do you care what joey means by it? If YOU think there is such a thing, give an example.

This seems a problem. How can someone claim there is objective moral values when they do not understand what 'an objective moral value' is, and provide an example of it.

[olavisjo]

What do you care what joey means by it? If YOU think there is such a thing, give an example.

I find that a conversation is generally more productive if two people are talking about the same thing. The idea of an example does not make sense, if moral values are objective then all moral values would be objective. So I was wondering if he was trying to differentiate between moral laws as opposed to moral preferences like manners and etiquette (which are for the most part subjective).

No matter what we may think of it now...has it ALWAYS. across all time and cultures, been NOT OK to rape?

This is another statement that has a built in potential for misunderstanding. If rape is wrong, then time and culture would not make any difference.

By their actions, a lot of people (mostly men) demonstrate that they feel rape is okay when they get to do it to women, girls, boys and even men. But would they feel the same way if they had to spend a weekend with a motorcycle gang giving them the same treatment?

[Crazy Ivan]

I find that a conversation is generally more productive if two people are talking about the same thing.

There is no such thing as "productive" conversations with fundamentalists. You simply can't acknowledge that the "same thing" is inherently different depending on whether one believes in moral-dictating gods or not. For the believer, removing gods from the equation, or definition, should still leave an indication of ultimate "right" or "wrong". That isn't the case. You fail because without gods in defining "morality" a priori, you have nothing to indicate morality is objective.