2023 : Basis for morality thread

[Wootah]

viewtopic.php?p=1110735#p1110735

As was said earlier and before now "I really hope you stay a Christian..." where a poster or debator has sworn that without Jesus in their life they would run amok on an orgy of rapine and plunder.

Yes, I've used that one myself in the past when a theist implies that atheists have no morals or reasons to 'behave'. People who need a god to act morally should definitely remain theists. I have no desire to deconvert anyone. Deconversion should be something that is arrived at naturally. Like when you discover "Santa's" gifts under your parent's bed before Christmas.

Welcome to a new year of debating. What is the basis for morality?

Options raised in this thread:

1) opinion - fails on people having different opinions

2) genes - fails - If an insect gets taken over by a parasite and then that insect is more helpful we would not say it was being more moral. If a gene is making someone good we would not say they are moral. If a robot could be programmed to be good it would not be making choices and not be moral.

3) cooperation - fails on the logic of a group not being right just because there are more of them.

4) God - So, for me, if morality exists it has to have an objective basis. If it is objective and because it applies to only free-willed creatures then it has to be an opinion of a free-will creature who can impose their will objectively such that we can know their opinion on what is moral. That's where I am heading with morality coming from God.

[Bubuche87]

As I said in a much earlier post, I would use the word champion or figurehead instead of messenger. But messenger too.

And here is the reason why I don't use that term you propose : because I don't see a reason to think that god is even remotely moral.
Especially if you think god created us in his image etc : he has the power to brainwash people, to design them, at a genetic level even, so they think he is good.

At this point of the discussion we still don't know what morality is, but god is completely outside the equation at best, or a clear indication of what it's not otherwise.

And down that road the all powerfulness and all knowingness are also discarded, leaving a moral monster worshipped only out of fear or - more likely - just a fable.

I think it's a reason why apologists are so hard on questioning the moral foundation of every other worldview: because each time a non-self-referential foundation is picked it leads to the conclusion that god is the morally worst character in the bible.

EDIT: typos

[theophile]

As I said in a much earlier post, I would use the word champion or figurehead instead of messenger. But messenger too.

And here is the reason why I don't use that term you propose : because I don't see a reason to think that god is even remotely moral.

How can you say that if morality is subjective? You can't just eliminate the subjectivity of God's own morality, at least not in any objective way, which is what I see you trying to do here.

And besides, being a champion or figurehead doesn't somehow make one moral. All I'm saying is it makes God representative of a certain subjective morality, or basic moral principle, which we all could share (if we deemed so).

Especially if you think god created us in his image etc : he has the power to brainwash people, to design them, at a genetic level even, so they think he is good.

Didn't we just agree in the last exchange to question God's power? We should all stop assuming such notions as you suggest here. (God can have great power, sure, but God could also be completely powerless, methinks, being just a messenger or figurehead...)

At this point of the discussion we still don't know what morality is, but god is completely outside the equation at best, or a clear indication of what it's not otherwise.

I am happy to remove God from the equation, like I said, but that doesn't mean God isn't part of the bigger picture.

I also proposed what I think morality is, but part of that is its subjectivity, which means that what I proposed depends on other's moral choice. (I have yet to hear any argument against the principle that I have proposed, i.e., a vision and end of a world filled with life, but I am all ears.)

What do you think morality is, so confident you seem that God is not moral?

And down that road the all powerfulness and all knowingness are also discarded, leaving a moral monster worshipped only out of fear or - more likely - just a fable.

I think that all-powerfulness and all-knowingness should be discarded, at least necessarily, but also not necessarily, if you know what I mean. They aren't essential to God but rather eschatological, for lack of a better word. They are more a part of God's end than they are God's beginning or any point along the way...

But sure, maybe just a fable. I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is that God is also possibly something much, much more.

[Bubuche87]

How can you say that if morality is subjective? You can't just eliminate the subjectivity of God's own morality, at least not in any objective way, which is what I see you trying to do here.

I said "I don't see a reason to think that god is" and I think you read "I do see a reason to think that god is not".
I carefully stayed away of that objective morality stuff in my answer because I think god can be addressed even before we start trying to find an answer to what morality is.

And besides, being a champion or figurehead doesn't somehow make one moral.

No but I think it presupposes that the champion shares or defend or fight for etc the values he champions.

To caricature what I say, maybe the real morality is actually "you ought murder". There is no reason to think that there is even a correlation between what god does/says and the good or the moral.

All I'm saying is it makes God representative of a certain subjective morality, or basic moral principle, which we all could share (if we deemed so).

I think you mean stronger than just "could" because if it's really just a could, yeah.
But we could as well flip a coin or take the subjective morality of a person picked at random.

Also "it makes God representative of a certain subjective morality" ... Yeah, god has an opinion and is entitled to it. So do I and every single person it seems.
Big deal.

I am happy to remove God from the equation, like I said, but that doesn't mean God isn't part of the bigger picture.

Yeah but the topic is morality. I didn't choose it, it's not my fault. I'd rather talk about the modal ontological argument and S5 logic but nobody is interested in that so here I am.

I also proposed what I think morality is, but part of that is its subjectivity, which means that what I proposed depends on other's moral choice. (I have yet to hear any argument against the principle that I have proposed, i.e., a vision and end of a world filled with life, but I am all ears.)

I need to reread the topic then. I missed that part I think.

Also, and I swear it's not a sneaky strategy to avoid answering, but the religion I have forbid me to talk about it.
If I were to phrase it in an biblical style "you ought not talk talk about anything else of this religion" would be a commandment.
I can say I am not allowed to talk about it, and that's it.

Also, to save time, what a quick search would teach you (so I spare you the time of the research): it's none of the "main" religions.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #361]

I think you are making progress. But where you seem to be is in recognising that morals, like everything else, is an evolutionary (chemical, biological and social) process. But somewhere along the way, you pop a god in there and recognising the imperfection (which this atheist at least has no problem with, even if a random off -the -street Christian might) simply asks 'why do we need a god in an evolutionary process at all?' This is a significant question because where there is no actual need, let alone no actual good evidence, the answer is that someone wants it to be there.

I submit to you that when you wrote ' is an evolutionary (chemical, biological and social) process' the very word 'process' is you popping a god into your beliefs.

At the minimum all a god is is the idealisation of a thing. So the idealisation of the perfect triangle allows us to draw better triangles.

How can you or anyone claim morality is evolving otherwise?

The fallacy of equivocation, it may be trivocation, in fact. Cooking is a technical process; healing is a biological process, fixing a car is a mechanical process. at the minimum doing it might be the elevation of a thing, and one could use the term 'idol' or 'god' if one becomes fixated on it. But that is not the same meaning as God. Idealisation is not that same thing as idolisation. At least (or maybe at best) it is a vague idea of how it could be wished to be - the best cooking ever, perfect return to health, a car that never goes wrong again. Those things don't exist thereby and don't amount to gods, in any case.

They may inspire or even clue us in to doing the thing better, but that is just a Process, not a god. in o.w I was talking the way the natural works, not the supernatural. trying to make a 'god' of that was a rhetorical trick that hurts your case, not mine.

You are debating from a very Christian perception of God as being the only type of God out there.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #361]

I think you are making progress. But where you seem to be is in recognising that morals, like everything else, is an evolutionary (chemical, biological and social) process. But somewhere along the way, you pop a god in there and recognising the imperfection (which this atheist at least has no problem with, even if a random off -the -street Christian might) simply asks 'why do we need a god in an evolutionary process at all?' This is a significant question because where there is no actual need, let alone no actual good evidence, the answer is that someone wants it to be there.

I submit to you that when you wrote ' is an evolutionary (chemical, biological and social) process' the very word 'process' is you popping a god into your beliefs.

At the minimum all a god is is the idealisation of a thing. So the idealisation of the perfect triangle allows us to draw better triangles.

How can you or anyone claim morality is evolving otherwise?

The fallacy of equivocation, it may be trivocation, in fact. Cooking is a technical process; healing is a biological process, fixing a car is a mechanical process. at the minimum doing it might be the elevation of a thing, and one could use the term 'idol' or 'god' if one becomes fixated on it. But that is not the same meaning as God. Idealisation is not that same thing as idolisation. At least (or maybe at best) it is a vague idea of how it could be wished to be - the best cooking ever, perfect return to health, a car that never goes wrong again. Those things don't exist thereby and don't amount to gods, in any case.

They may inspire or even clue us in to doing the thing better, but that is just a Process, not a god. in o.w I was talking the way the natural works, not the supernatural. trying to make a 'god' of that was a rhetorical trick that hurts your case, not mine.

You are debating from a very Christian perception of God as being the only type of God out there.

I am doing no such thing. I am arguing that 'processes' may be natural. In fact all the ones we know of (apart from ones done by humans) are (unthinking) natural processes. Morality so far as it is understood at all and whether subjective or objective or a bit of both is a mix of both, natural and human, so far as we can tell. There is no need to postulate a god of any kind, let alone the Christian one.