morality!

[Lynx]

Okay so on the question of absolute and objective and subjective morality.
Here is a small socratic analysis of the problem:

If god exists and if God is wholly good then he cannot do anything evil.
therefore, the rules that god has chosen are good OR since he is good the rules he chooses become Good to fit his good-ness.

If it is the latter than the rules are arbitrary and there is no absolute good or evil since they depend on the whim of god and can be otherwise.

If it is the former then there exists a moral good independent of God.

Either way God's existence does not change the metaphysical status of good or evil: his existence does not guarantee they exist absolutely nor does his exist entail that they are arbitrary; it is just as unknown.

Now, the obvious rejection is "well at least we have God to tell us whereas non-theists don't have god to tell them".

Well, sure. BUt just as there are many different religions competing there are many different ethical systems competing (for instance, consequentialism and deontological ethics) so the theist isn't any better off than the non-theist since the theist just picks their religion based on what makes sense to them and the atheist picks their ethical theory that they feel is most logical.

 

[Skavau]

Either way God's existence does not change the metaphysical status of good or evil: his existence does not guarantee they exist absolutely nor does his exist entail that they are arbitrary; it is just as unknown.

Indeed, a theist that claims to know that X is wrong is unable to explain how (in most instances) only that they know it is. There is a difference between knowing why something is true and knowing it is true.

Well, sure. BUt just as there are many different religions competing there are many different ethical systems competing (for instance, consequentialism and deontological ethics) so the theist isn't any better off than the non-theist since the theist just picks their religion based on what makes sense to them and the atheist picks their ethical theory that they feel is most logical.

Indeed. The human condition is still all-ever present in religious makeup. This is why we see schisms, differences of interpretation, different sects and in general thousands upon thousands of religious beliefs that many of which, in some particular way claim to be infallible.

Something in general, is very suspect.

 

[Dagless]

Well, sure. BUt just as there are many different religions competing there are many different ethical systems competing (for instance, consequentialism and deontological ethics) so the theist isn't any better off than the non-theist since the theist just picks their religion based on what makes sense to them and the atheist picks their ethical theory that they feel is most logical.

Why do people always assume the theist picks religion based on "feeling", many theists also logically weigh up the information and make an informed choice. You make it sound like whim when its not.
For the theist morality is clearly defined in religion, what is right and what is wrong are laid out and so those must be followed exactly. The atheist is choosing what is right and wrong based on social norms (which change) or their own moral compass (which could be broken). Its pointless to debate which is more correct because the choice is made after belief is decided (bearing in mind religion is not chosen only based on morals).

 

[CosmicPathos]

A hindu came up to me and criticized Allah (swt) for differentiating mankind into believers and kaafirs etc. Upon asking him what he believes in, he referred back to Bhagvad Gita and some similar texts. He also claimed that he does not believe in Prophets and that Hindu scriptures are works of scholars and are thus superior to Prophet's work. Well then I asked him how does he justify racial discrimination against the Shudras that was inherent in Brahmanical Hinduism and people seemed to be okay with it for nearly 2000 years! Sure, there were philosophical arguments against it but it is clear that some corrupt man/scholar got to say his say in the "divinely inspired scriptures" and hence his evil morals became justifiable by a scripture and most people did not find any problem with it. Then there is the issue of widow-burning called Sati. It took a Madrassa-educated Hindu who started the Brahmo Samaj movement to condemn the practice of Sati in british India.

 

[tetsujin]

I find it sad that Socrates was killed, or so the story goes.


Islamic philosophy trumps all other philosophy. Any ideas that might counter what cannot be deduced from Islamic teachings must be wrong. Any attempt to reconcile them is heresy, as we found out in the 9th century AD.

The ticket to heaven is not in thinking, it's in believing.


All the best,


Faysal

 

[CosmicPathos]

I find it sad that Socrates was killed, or so the story goes.


Islamic philosophy trumps all other philosophy. Any ideas that might counter what cannot be deduced from Islamic teachings must be wrong. Any attempt to reconcile them is heresy, as we found out in the 9th century AD.

The ticket to heaven is not in thinking, it's in believing.


All the best,


Faysal

Methodological thinking leads to believing. It leads to either a belief in God's existence or a belief in God's absence depending on the underlying assumptions. Certain assumptions are more valid than others. Unrestrained thinking leads to nihilism and agnosticism regarding God's existence.

 

[Dagless]

The ticket to heaven is not in thinking, it's in believing.

Please don't put words in other peoples mouths, since for most (if not all) Muslims thinking leads to certain belief.

 

[tetsujin]

Please don't put words in other peoples mouths, since for most (if not all) Muslims thinking leads to certain belief.

Sorry, I'll keep personal experiences out of this.

All the best,


Faysal

 

[Lynx]

Why do people always assume the theist picks religion based on "feeling", many theists also logically weigh up the information and make an informed choice. You make it sound like whim when its not.
For the theist morality is clearly defined in religion, what is right and what is wrong are laid out and so those must be followed exactly. The atheist is choosing what is right and wrong based on social norms (which change) or their own moral compass (which could be broken). Its pointless to debate which is more correct because the choice is made after belief is decided (bearing in mind religion is not chosen only based on morals).

Oh, I agree. I wrote my OP in a rush I guess. It should read "the theist [who reflects on these matters] picks what he believes is most logical and sticks to that and and the atheist [who reflects on these matters] picks what he thinks is the most logical.

Also, It's definitely not the case that atheists follow the social norms. A reflective atheist will consider competing ethical theories such as the ones I mentioned. Some atheists do of course follow social norms and some religious people follow social norms as their code of morals but this isn't the case for ALL atheists or theists. My point was theists make an unfair argument against atheists telling them they have no morals but theists aren't any more informed on the status of moral facts since whether or not God exists it makes no difference to whether or not moral absolutes exist.

As Skavu pointed out earlier, unless you can provide the reasons for why x is wrong you aren't any better than an atheist except you've subscribed to a religious system to give you the answers...but as I have shown, even subscribing to a religious statement won't get you out.

 

[Dagless]

My point was theists make an unfair argument against atheists telling them they have no morals but theists aren't any more informed on the status of moral facts since whether or not God exists it makes no difference to whether or not moral absolutes exist.

The morals given by God are the absolute morals. At the very least we can say you have that backwards, since for us whether or not independent moral absolutes exist makes no difference as to whether or not God exists.

As Skavu pointed out earlier, unless you can provide the reasons for why x is wrong you aren't any better than an atheist except you've subscribed to a religious system to give you the answers...but as I have shown, even subscribing to a religious statement won't get you out.

If we say that the rules given to us by God are the correct moral absolutes then you have your yardstick. Everyone is different, and some will see that yes that moral code is correct, and others will see it is correct after going the wrong way and realising the truth, while some may never see it.
It doesn't matter whether it is because God is good, or all God does is good, or a 3rd, 4th, or 5th option.

I can see this thread going the same way as the "free will" thread where you will say if some people cannot see that it is the correct moral code how can they be judged. To which I will say if that is the case how can you blame anyone for any moral action, and then give the murderer example and say he doesn't see killing people as wrong but is still tried and convicted etc. etc.

All your threads eventually water down to a form of nihilism.

 

[Lynx]

The morals given by God are the absolute morals. At the very least we can say you have that backwards, since for us whether or not independent moral absolutes exist makes no difference as to whether or not God exists.



If we say that the rules given to us by God are the correct moral absolutes then you have your yardstick. Everyone is different, and some will see that yes that moral code is correct, and others will see it is correct after going the wrong way and realising the truth, while some may never see it.
It doesn't matter whether it is because God is good, or all God does is good, or a 3rd, 4th, or 5th option.

I can see this thread going the same way as the "free will" thread where you will say if some people cannot see that it is the correct moral code how can they be judged. To which I will say if that is the case how can you blame anyone for any moral action, and then give the murderer example and say he doesn't see killing people as wrong but is still tried and convicted etc. etc.

All your threads eventually water down to a form of nihilism.

Well my point isn't whether God exists. I was just trying to show that belief in a God doesn't really tell us anything about morality. An atheist who is convinced by utilitarian ethics for instance is just as justified in his belief, if not more, as a theist in his divinely appointed code of ethics.

Also, you shouldn't confuse law and morality. Law is designed to get society to function. If you legalize murder, no matter what your moral beliefs are, your society will turn into anarchy. Ultimately, we don't want to suffer and if we don't make laws against murdering then the collective whole will suffer. It is my humble opinion that morality isn't anything beyond this collective agreement (social contract) and emotion to drive it.

 

[Dagless]

Well my point isn't whether God exists. I was just trying to show that belief in a God doesn't really tell us anything about morality. An atheist who is convinced by utilitarian ethics for instance is just as justified in his belief, if not more, as a theist in his divinely appointed code of ethics.

Isn't this why everyone is free to practice their own beliefs? (within reason). My point was the justification you use to define how absolute morals are reached doesn't matter for theists because absolute morals exist and have been defined. The mechanism or whether they are innate for everyone doesn't change that fact.

Also, you shouldn't confuse law and morality. Law is designed to get society to function. If you legalize murder, no matter what your moral beliefs are, your society will turn into anarchy. Ultimately, we don't want to suffer and if we don't make laws against murdering then the collective whole will suffer. It is my humble opinion that morality isn't anything beyond this collective agreement (social contract) and emotion to drive it.

I would argue that laws against things such as murder are based on morality.
Laws also aren't always for the collective, sometimes they are based entirely on morality. Animal welfare, for example, doesn't really impact on the community as a whole yet if you are cruel to an animal you can be put in prison.

 

[aamirsaab]

On the subject of morality: if you break it down, it all comes to human emotion. Morality is just a word in that case - the real issue is emotion.

I would say religion, specifically Islam, helps you control your emotions and express them in all senses of the word.

 

[Lynx]

On the subject of morality: if you break it down, it all comes to human emotion. Morality is just a word in that case - the real issue is emotion.

I would say religion, specifically Islam, helps you control your emotions and express them in all senses of the word.

I think I agree halfway. Emotion is probably the basis for individual morality but social agreements is how we regulate everyone's individual emotions.

Isn't this why everyone is free to practice their own beliefs? (within reason). My point was the justification you use to define how absolute morals are reached doesn't matter for theists because absolute morals exist and have been defined. The mechanism or whether they are innate for everyone doesn't change that fact.

Yeah, but my point was you don't know what absolute morals are even if Islam was true. Again if God arbitrarily picks them then they aren't absolute because if God did not exist they wouldn't be good and absolute implies in all cases. Conversely, if God picks them because they are good absolutely then it just shows you can have an ethical basis without God. Maybe some sort of Platonism is true or something. I guess what I am trying to say is that morals derived from religion are not any more legitimate than an atheist deriving morals from the categorical imperative or something.

I would argue that laws against things such as murder are based on morality.
Laws also aren't always for the collective, sometimes they are based entirely on morality. Animal welfare, for example, doesn't really impact on the community as a whole yet if you are cruel to an animal you can be put in prison.

Yeah that is true. I suppose some laws have a moral basis (like Rights especially) as well as a social basis. In most cases though, law isn't equivalent to morality. Law is a subset of rules contained in Morality.

 

[What Is Truth?]

If god exists and if God is wholly good then he cannot do anything evil.
therefore, the rules that god has chosen are good OR since he is good the rules he chooses become Good to fit his good-ness.

If it is the latter than the rules are arbitrary and there is no absolute good or evil since they depend on the whim of god and can be otherwise.

If it is the former then there exists a moral good independent of God.

Your analysis assumes that God chooses moral laws - but there is also the possibility that they flow from God's essence (goodness).

I think the main problem for an atheistic meta-ethic that wants to affirm objective moral laws has to do with not having an objective standard of goodness. I find it helpful to think of the analogy of someone recording a piece of orchestral music. The sound quality of recording is judged on the basis of what the orchestra actually sounds like. Similarly, the moral quality of an action is said to be good if it measures up to some predefined standard of what it means to be good. An atheistic meta-ethic must come up with some arbitrary standard of goodness, as there is nothing actual to ontologically ground that standard. The theistic meta-ethic has no problems in this regard, however, as God's essence is goodness. Of course both the atheist and the theist still have to do ethics - finding out what exactly goodness is and how to deduce moral laws from it - but only the theist can affirm that an objective standard actually exists.

 

[tetsujin]

Your analysis assumes that God chooses moral laws - but there is also the possibility that they flow from God's essence (goodness).

I think the main problem for an atheistic meta-ethic that wants to affirm objective moral laws has to do with not having an objective standard of goodness. I find it helpful to think of the analogy of someone recording a piece of orchestral music. The sound quality of recording is judged on the basis of what the orchestra actually sounds like. Similarly, the moral quality of an action is said to be good if it measures up to some predefined standard of what it means to be good. An atheistic meta-ethic must come up with some arbitrary standard of goodness, as there is nothing actual to ontologically ground that standard. The theistic meta-ethic has no problems in this regard, however, as God's essence is goodness. Of course both the atheist and the theist still have to do ethics - finding out what exactly goodness is and how to deduce moral laws from it - but only the theist can affirm that an objective standard actually exists.

It's the same issue/problem with or without a deity.

If we're going to ask these questions it may do good to refer to Euthyphro.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html


All the best,


Faysal

 

[Nokiacrazi]

God created good and bad. He wants human beings to do good, but he knows some will do bad. He knows who will go to hell and heaven even before he created us. It is just so that when he places us in hell/heaven on day of judgement we will be shown why we were placed where we were. It is said our own body will be a witness against us. SubhanAllah.

 

[What Is Truth?]

It's the same issue/problem with or without a deity.

Which problem are you referring to?

If we're going to ask these questions it may do good to refer to Euthyphro.

I countered with the rather well-known response of saying that Euthyphro's dilemma is false: goodness is neither independent from God nor "chosen" by God arbitrarily, but is God's very nature.

 

[Skavau]

I countered with the rather well-known response of saying that Euthyphro's dilemma is false: goodness is neither independent from God nor "chosen" by God arbitrarily, but is God's very nature.

'Good' being God's nature appears to negate morality down to some kind of 'essence'. If good is just God's nature, then what does that even mean? It is an incoherent response and does not address the origin of morality as per a theist would understand it.

A more prudent question that I think you ought to ask yourself (and theists, in general) on this issue would be whether or not you would always, under all circumstances obey what God commanded you to do. Your answer to that question would inform others of where your priorities lie.

 

[Dagless]

The main hurdle in this thread, and what's leading to atheists thinking that their valid points are not being addressed, is belief. For the theist its a black and white answer - nothing can exist without God. Therefore the avenue of whether there is an absolute good or evil independent of God isn't something we understand, because nothing can be independent of God, and so its not even an argument.

How about:

Definitions of good and evil are created by God. We are created by God with a capacity for both. There is an absolute scale but only in relation to that which God has created.
The theist can see the rules for both roads on the map (good and evil). The atheist cannot see the map and so bumps around and finds things which work and don't work. How does he decide what works and what doesn't? Well there is no way to test this exhaustively over one lifetime, though you can roughly see over the course of your life - the rules are made so that good is always better for you overall in the long run, whereas evil is always worse for you in the long run.