On Morality and Counter-Apologetics

[Jester]

I have heard it claimed by several on this site that morality is merely a social construction. In general, the state of affairs is that those who believe in some kind of deity/higher power believes objective ethics flow from that deity; those who don't believe consider human opinion (whether corporate, individual, or both) to be the source of ethics.

It seems to me, and to most atheists with whom I've discussed the matter, that there is no point in using the Bible as a source of ethics until you've convinced your opponent that the God of the Bible exists (and, for some, not even then).

While many theists tend to be blind to this fact, the opposite seems the harder to grasp for some atheists I have personally encountered: That, if one claims that social convention and/or individual decision is the source of all ethics, those who disagree will be entirely nonplussed by moral cries made on these grounds.

More simply, there are those who seem to demand that religion has caused a great deal of immorality - expecting to make the religious see the err of their ways - then sabotage their own claim by stating that morality is up to society. What is more surprising to me is the case of claiming that ethics are social, then claiming (in a predominantly theist society) that worshiping a God is immoral.

The questions, then, are as follows:
Is it reasonable to claim that ethics are socially created, but that it is not unethical to disagree with a society?
Is this what is actually being claimed by the non-theists which you have encountered (or yourself, if you happen to be a non-theist)? If not, what is it?
Quite apart from truth, is there any point in theists or non-theists trying to persuade an opponent with ideas which require acceptance of a whole new paradigm before they will carry any weight?
If indeed morals are merely human constructs, is there any process by which we can claim that some are better than others, or are we stuck with the idea that the Nazis are no more good or bad than we?
Lastly, is there any view of ethics which does not either depend on belief in some form of deity or logically lead us to nihilism?

[Cathar1950]

Morality is relative and by relative I mean dependent upon relations between people. God doesn’t so much declare what is good as much as God would recognize the good in the relationships or conditions…
This is why I have problems with your idea that there is no morality with out God.
Our evolution has created us as social creatures which is the foundation of our morality.
We don’t created out of nothing nor is it an arbitrary creation. As a social concept as it is grounded in social relationships and Reciprocal altruism.

While I can understand, even empathize with, this, the question isn't about whether or not such a system is based on some central belief in the value of social relationships, but whether or not there is a reason to support such a belief outside of opinion.

To rephrase a bit, what support would you present in a debate against a person who claimed "I feel no need to respect social relationships and reciprocal altruism"?

Some of them we call sociopaths and the others should be stopped.
We don't need to debate them; we need to put them where they can't hurt others.
Why don't we just leave it up to God and not bother with laws as the God that is supposed to be the justification should be the one to let them know?
Why even bother with debating with them?

[Jester]

Some of them we call sociopaths and the others should be stopped.
We don't need to debate them; we need to put them where they can't hurt others.
Why don't we just leave it up to God and not bother with laws as the God that is supposed to be the justification should be the one to let them know?
Why even bother with debating with them?

If you feel no need to debate, and instead simply rely on force, you are certainly allowed.
What this is not, however, is a point in debate. Regardless of whether or not we stop such people, the question remains unanswered. This is a major problem both for those who claim that morality should be logically consistent, and for those who claim that they don't believe in anything without evidential support.

[Goat]

Some of them we call sociopaths and the others should be stopped.
We don't need to debate them; we need to put them where they can't hurt others.
Why don't we just leave it up to God and not bother with laws as the God that is supposed to be the justification should be the one to let them know?
Why even bother with debating with them?

If you feel no need to debate, and instead simply rely on force, you are certainly allowed.
What this is not, however, is a point in debate. Regardless of whether or not we stop such people, the question remains unanswered. This is a major problem both for those who claim that morality should be logically consistent, and for those who claim that they don't believe in anything without evidential support.

When it comes to society, it has given itself the right to protect itself. The specific traits you mention can be a danger to the society as a whole, and for other individuals within the society. As such, society consider those individuals flawed, and have taken steps to protect itself (and the individuals that make up society) from these types of people.

[Cathar1950]

Some of them we call sociopaths and the others should be stopped.
We don't need to debate them; we need to put them where they can't hurt others.
Why don't we just leave it up to God and not bother with laws as the God that is supposed to be the justification should be the one to let them know?
Why even bother with debating with them?

If you feel no need to debate, and instead simply rely on force, you are certainly allowed.
What this is not, however, is a point in debate. Regardless of whether or not we stop such people, the question remains unanswered. This is a major problem both for those who claim that morality should be logically consistent, and for those who claim that they don't believe in anything without evidential support.

Do you think claiming your morals are supported by God as the foundation is going to win the debate with the sociopath? So what if you win a debate with them.
What arguments would you use besides God says so?
As I see it you are begging the question with an appeal to an authority, God.
What if God orders you to kill all the women and children? Is it wrong and what is the bases for it being wrong?
Don't pull your sister's hair. How would you like it if your sister pulled your hair or someone did that to you is a better argument then don't do that because God doesn't like it and you will go to hell when you die.

[Jester]

When it comes to society, it has given itself the right to protect itself. The specific traits you mention can be a danger to the society as a whole, and for other individuals within the society. As such, society consider those individuals flawed, and have taken steps to protect itself (and the individuals that make up society) from these types of people.

I'm aware that society chooses to protect itself. I am also aware that society views sociopaths as flawed. Neither of these facts, however, address my point.

[Cathar1950]

When it comes to society, it has given itself the right to protect itself. The specific traits you mention can be a danger to the society as a whole, and for other individuals within the society. As such, society consider those individuals flawed, and have taken steps to protect itself (and the individuals that make up society) from these types of people.

I'm aware that society chooses to protect itself. I am also aware that society views sociopaths as flawed. Neither of these facts, however, address my point.

I don't see that you have made a point.
God doesn't like it isn't a good explanation.
A better question is why doesn't God like it, assuming God of course. I am saying God doesn't like it because it hurts others and we humans are all about others from our birth, provided someone takes care of us.
Other animals protect each other and even show concern so it seems odd that somehow we need God to justify caring.

[Goat]

When it comes to society, it has given itself the right to protect itself. The specific traits you mention can be a danger to the society as a whole, and for other individuals within the society. As such, society consider those individuals flawed, and have taken steps to protect itself (and the individuals that make up society) from these types of people.

I'm aware that society chooses to protect itself. I am also aware that society views sociopaths as flawed. Neither of these facts, however, address my point.

ok

The process that says what is good or what isn't is that it has to WORK. Ethics that don't work cause chaos, and the society destroys itself.

Ethics that work let the society thrive.

It's as simple and as complex as that.\

[Jester]

Do you think claiming your morals are supported by God as the foundation is going to win the debate with the sociopath? So what if you win a debate with them.

You needn't care that the question is unanswered, and you needn't care that you don't think most sociopaths would be impressed with an answer.
I personally am and the fact that I do feel there is an answer is a motivator toward ethics for me.
That's all beside the point, however.
This isn't a practical/casual conversation. We're not sitting around a sociopath trying to decide what to do with him. We are having a debate; that means evidence and logic are the requirement.

What arguments would you use besides God says so?

Assuming that God exists, then this means that the universe was not only created to serve a specific purpose, but God has woven that purpose into life itself. Basically, if we assume that someone exists who knows everything and has the power to make reality at will, I'd say that his word goes pretty far.

As I see it you are begging the question with an appeal to an authority, God.
What if God orders you to kill all the women and children? Is it wrong and what is the bases for it being wrong?

That would be in clear contradiction of my understanding of God - that seems to me rather like asking if I would believe in gravity if scientists started claiming that it causes matter to repel matter. We wouldn't be talking about God or gravity as I understand either of them.

So, if you are basically asking "what if God commanded something immoral", then we'd be back to the problem of how you define something as immoral, if not via God.
So far, we only seem to have a 'might makes right' argument that society will punish as it sees fit.

Don't pull your sister's hair. How would you like it if your sister pulled your hair or someone did that to you is a better argument then don't do that because God doesn't like it and you will go to hell when you die.

The problem is that "how would you like it" is an emotional appeal, not a rational argument.
If you are saying something to the effect of "I don't care about rational arguments, I'm only interested in emotional appeals", that's perfectly fine as a personal position. I certainly won't stop you.
My trouble is, first, that this isn't debating (which wouldn't be a problem save that we are in a debate) and, second, that this is a problem for those who claim not to believe anything without a rational reason to do so.

[Cathar1950]

Do you think claiming your morals are supported by God as the foundation is going to win the debate with the sociopath? So what if you win a debate with them.

You needn't care that the question is unanswered, and you needn't care that you don't think most sociopaths would be impressed with an answer.
I personally am and the fact that I do feel there is an answer is a motivator toward ethics for me.
That's all beside the point, however.
This isn't a practical/casual conversation. We're not sitting around a sociopath trying to decide what to do with him. We are having a debate; that means evidence and logic are the requirement.

What arguments would you use besides God says so?

Assuming that God exists, then this means that the universe was not only created to serve a specific purpose, but God has woven that purpose into life itself. Basically, if we assume that someone exists who knows everything and has the power to make reality at will, I'd say that his word goes pretty far.

As I see it you are begging the question with an appeal to an authority, God.
What if God orders you to kill all the women and children? Is it wrong and what is the bases for it being wrong?

That would be in clear contradiction of my understanding of God - that seems to me rather like asking if I would believe in gravity if scientists started claiming that it causes matter to repel matter. We wouldn't be talking about God or gravity as I understand either of them.

So, if you are basically asking "what if God commanded something immoral", then we'd be back to the problem of how you define something as immoral, if not via God.
So far, we only seem to have a 'might makes right' argument that society will punish as it sees fit.

Don't pull your sister's hair. How would you like it if your sister pulled your hair or someone did that to you is a better argument then don't do that because God doesn't like it and you will go to hell when you die.

I believe that Jesus (and other) made comments to that end.
The problem is that "how would you like it" is an emotional appeal, not a rational argument.
If you are saying something to the effect of "I don't care about rational arguments, I'm only interested in emotional appeals", that's perfectly fine as a personal position. I certainly won't stop you.
My trouble is, first, that this isn't debating (which wouldn't be a problem save that we are in a debate) and, second, that this is a problem for those who claim not to believe anything without a rational reason to do so.

I am not appealing to emotions or rejecting reason. If we ask why we should reason we are implying reason for reason demands answers or explanation.
I don't see that God or evolution has one purpose and to think there is only one purpose seems to be more limiting to God then the limits of humans. We are capable of an almost infinite number of purposes and it would seem reasonable that God would also have as many or more.
We evolved(you might say God gave us our emotions) with feelings so that our purposes would be important to us, among other things and we even feel injustice when we care about others and they don't reciprocate.
Whitehead said that the purpose of reason was to promote the art of living. I tend to think it also helps us live well.
I am getting tired and I hope we continue this discussion and debate later.
We evolved in extended families and groups most likely groups smaller the hunting and gathering groups. Emotions and group coherency were enough but as we grew in numbers becoming hunters and gatherers our groups were still small enough that rules were not formal. The tribe pretty much could take care of the sociopaths.
As we grew in numbers and be had Big Men or even Chiefs we start seeing the problems with power and we see some sociopaths running things. Eventually we out grow them and they get killed.
I recall you saying something about might makes right. But isn’t that what is often done with the God concept as the bases for morality?
That seems to be what was going on with our ancient city states where the king represents the tribal god where the king is seem as the god’s representative ir even the god’s son as in the royal ideology of the Davidic line often mistaken for prophesies of Jesus by Christians.

[Jester]

ok

The process that says what is good or what isn't is that it has to WORK. Ethics that don't work cause chaos, and the society destroys itself.

Ethics that work let the society thrive.

It's as simple and as complex as that.\

I'm not arguing with the practicality of that - I'm claiming that this is not a response to my question.
To put it another way: why does it have to work?
I really like society working myself. On a personal level, I'd certainly rather it didn't collapse. I doubt that there are words the intensity of that position of mine, and suspect that the same could be said of most.
None of this, however, is a logical reason. Perfectly fine if one makes no claim to believe nothing without rational support for it.