DescentBB

flip alluded to this topic within the militia thread and I spotted this event in our local paper this morning. How convenient. The Oregon State Socratic Club is going to debate that very question on Tuesday the 22 of January, 2013 at 7 PM. They're going to stream it live online. It might be interesting. The streaming link is in here:

http://groups.oregonstate.edu/socratic/

Ugh, I've seen debates on this before. Basically, it largely boils down to semantics. The answer to the question depends almost entirely on how one defines "morality", and the answers fall into two camps:

One uses a definition which requires an absolute metric for morality (e.g. from an external or supernatural source), and sees indefinite or flexible areas in a moral system as a weakness.

The other uses a definition which uses relative metrics looking at things like cause/effect (e.g. arising from a collective good), and sees hard definitions in a complex moral system as a problem.

...And never the twain shall meet. They're simply incompatible perspectives.

That said, the one good thing that these debates do is help people see where their own view fits in the spectrum.

Ugh, I've seen debates on this before. Basically, it largely boils down to semantics. The answer to the question depends almost entirely on how one defines "morality", and the answers fall into two camps:

One uses a definition which requires an absolute metric for morality (e.g. from an external or supernatural source), and sees indefinite or flexible areas in a moral system as a weakness.

The other uses a definition which uses relative metrics looking at things like cause/effect (e.g. arising from a collective good), and sees hard definitions in a complex moral system as a problem.

...And never the twain shall meet. They're simply incompatible perspectives.

That said, the one good thing that these debates do is help people see where their own view fits in the spectrum.

My thoughts exactly.

Moral relativism... heh. As if...

mo·ral·i·ty
[muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA
noun, plural mo·ral·i·ties for 4–6.
1.
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2.
moral quality or character.
3.
virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4.
a doctrine or system of morals.
5.
moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.

TECHNICALLY by definition no. but what are your morals based on??

Foil wrote:Ugh, I've seen debates on this before. Basically, it largely boils down to semantics. The answer to the question depends almost entirely on how one defines "morality", and the answers fall into two camps:

One uses a definition which requires an absolute metric for morality (e.g. from an external or supernatural source), and sees indefinite or flexible areas in a moral system as a weakness.

The other uses a definition which uses relative metrics looking at things like cause/effect (e.g. arising from a collective good), and sees hard definitions in a complex moral system as a problem.

...And never the twain shall meet. They're simply incompatible perspectives.

Both viewpoints also suffer from the same problem that they accuse each other of. The absolutists accuse the relativists of trusting the arbitrariness of collective opinion, whereas the relativists accuse the absolutists of trusting the arbitrariness of God's opinion.

I think maybe the better question would be…does morality require an authority figure, and the answer in my opinion would be a definite……maybe.

Heh, no just kidding.

I think for the very young, an external authority figure is essential, but as we mature the “authority” needed for moral behavior, must come from within. So for an adult, I would have to say…no, with the caveat…that you must have all of your mental facilities working correctly, most importantly a good sense of empathy.

Outside of proper mental health…there definitely seems to be a need for a punishment and reward system, but even those fail.

But in the end, I think both systems seem to work pretty well…for the most part.

vision wrote:

thats a stupid premise. everyone has a different standard to what is right and wrong. and many times it's culturally based.
we feel disgust in our country at the thought of eating another human being, but cannibal cultures of perfectly acceptable and moral to do so. in our country it's morally OK for women to walk around the street scantily clad. but in Muslim countries it's not.
in our country it's considered morally wrong to cheat someone in a business deal. in many Asian cultures if perfectly acceptable and morally OK

Morals are subjective to the culture. and right from wrong is not a Moral standard. it's a legal standard.

Cuda wrote:everyone has a different standard to what is right and wrong.

Including God. God's ethical opinion is just as subjective as anyone else's. That the good is whatever God thinks is good--you can't have a more subjective ethical standard than that.

"Does morality require God?"

Nope.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

What if there is a God though? How would that change the question TC asked? I myself know there is one and is revealed to me through the name of Jesus, I have been an eyewitness to His power, but the question is directed towards those that have not benefited. If there is a God, would he have any expectations and what would those be?

Jeff250 wrote:

Cuda wrote:everyone has a different standard to what is right and wrong.

Including God. God's ethical opinion is just as subjective as anyone else's. That the good is whatever God thinks is good--you can't have a more subjective ethical standard than that.

I'm guessing you just skimmed. if you read my original post I said.

TECHNICALLY by definition no. but what are your morals based on??

you can be moral without God. but like I pointed out Morality is Cultural subjective. while I freely admit that I base my Morality on the Bible. so does our Government. the core tenants of our laws are based on the 10 commandments. and a sculpture of Moses carrying the Commandments is carved into the facade of the Supreme Court building.
I believe that Christ is a good role model for proper Morals and that is what you and I and our country base our Morals on. not do over read what I said. believing in God / Christ is not a requirement for being Moral. Morality is obedience to a principle. but again, what do you base your Morality on?

CUDA wrote:Morality is obedience to a principle. but again, what do you base your Morality on?

The reduction of suffering of all living beings.

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:Morality is obedience to a principle. but again, what do you base your Morality on?

The reduction of suffering of all living beings.

So a morphine drip can be the distribution of morality? How about euthanasia? Genocide?

Will Robinson wrote:Genocide?

You, uh, wanna 'splain to us how mass murder "reduces suffering"?

no, it doesn't require God, or even a religious belief system.

CUDA wrote:but again, what do you base your Morality on?

What does God base his morality on?

Jeff250 wrote:

CUDA wrote:but again, what do you base your Morality on?

What does God base his morality on?

whoa! There's a question for those with a philosophical bent to ponder!

Will Robinson wrote:

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:Morality is obedience to a principle. but again, what do you base your Morality on?

The reduction of suffering of all living beings.

So a morphine drip can be the distribution of morality? How about euthanasia? Genocide?

According to his standards yes all those things are Moral

CUDA wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:Morality is obedience to a principle. but again, what do you base your Morality on?

The reduction of suffering of all living beings.

So a morphine drip can be the distribution of morality? How about euthanasia? Genocide?

According to his standards yes all those things are Moral

Cuda and Will have a point here, in that "reduction of suffering" alone doesn't suffice as a moral basis, because suffering is associated with life. In other words, that basis alone (without any cavéats) allows for any form of ending life as a means of ending suffering.

Usually, I've heard it expressed as some combination of "preserving life" and "reducing suffering", or in opposite terms, something like "the most happiness for the most people", which eliminates known evil ways of ending life like genocide, etc.

Jeff250 wrote:

CUDA wrote:but again, what do you base your Morality on?

What does God base his morality on?

Most Christians I've known will simply answer that "God, as the highest power / love / creator, needs no external moral basis."

Personally, I think that's a bit of a deflection, as it only works under the assumption that good is simply a synonym for God's will (i.e. "God cannot do evil by definition"). I think the question "Could God be evil?" is worth asking, if for no other reason than to discuss non-divine definitions of good/evil.

Top Gun wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Genocide?

You, uh, wanna 'splain to us how mass murder "reduces suffering"?

right along the same lines as assisted suicide. if people are starving (over population problem) they would suffer less if dead.

flawed thinking isn't it. so is visions definition of morality

Foil wrote: I think the question "Could God be evil?" is worth asking, if for no other reason than to discuss non-divine definitions of good/evil.

Geezus, I go away for a few days and return to a fountain of deep questions. That's a pip, Foil.

Foil wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:

CUDA wrote:but again what do you base your Morality on?

What does God base his morality on?

Most Christians I've known will simply answer that "God, as the highest power / love / creator, needs no external moral basis."

Personally, I think that's a bit of a deflection, as it only works under the assumption that good is simply a synonym for God's will (i.e. "God cannot do evil by definition"). I think the question "Could God be evil?" is worth asking, if for no other reason than to discuss non-divine definitions of good/evil.

I'd say you're on the right lines.

I don't think the concept of morality applies to God. Considering the biblical origins - in the beginning was God - there isn't any such thing as an external reference by which to judge Him. Then, as creation, all of the universe is subject to His design and intent.

Morality only applies to things that have a goal to either achieve or not... God is the way He is and never changes, was never created or intended... So there isn't anything you could apply to Him as a standard that wouldn't have originated in Himself.

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Genocide?

You, uh, wanna 'splain to us how mass murder "reduces suffering"?

right along the same lines as assisted suicide. if people are starving (over population problem) they would suffer less if dead.

flawed thinking isn't it. so is visions definition of morality

Bingo

I was taking the flawed premise toward the cliff and over it.
The morphine drip might not even kill you, the euthanasia will but usually with your permission, and of course genocide.Hitler could explain better 'why' but for this example the only thing you need to know is all three examples reduced the suffering of the recipients. Vision needs more to his definition by most people's standards regardless of their belief in god.

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Genocide?

You, uh, wanna 'splain to us how mass murder "reduces suffering"?

right along the same lines as assisted suicide. if people are starving (over population problem) they would suffer less if dead.

flawed thinking isn't it. so is visions definition of morality

The basic definition of genocide entails attempting to eliminate a specific ethnic, religious, or national group, so it wouldn't make sense if applied to randomly killing people that were starving. Besides, that, the concept of assisted suicide applies to those suffering from terminal illnesses, not from a treatable condition. I've certainly never seen anyone outside of stark-raving loons advocate mass murder as a "solution" for poverty or famine, so it's just a straw man anyway.

Okay, we've established that a simple definition like "reducing suffering" by itself isn't enough.

What about a slightly broader definition, as I stated above?

Foil wrote:... "the most happiness for the most people", which eliminates known evil ways of ending life like genocide, etc.

Again, it's not a perfect or even rigorous definition (for example, it doesn't answer hypothetical scenarios weighing a single person's extreme suffering vs. a large group each suffering a little), but it fits the topic, and is a little closer to a legitimate non-supernatural moral basis.

Will Robinson wrote:

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:Morality is obedience to a principle. but again, what do you base your Morality on?

The reduction of suffering of all living beings.

So a morphine drip can be the distribution of morality? How about euthanasia? Genocide?

Why not? Excepting genocide, which is the extermination of those considered undesirable and not usually the undesirable's destination of choice, what's wrong with allowing a suffering person to choose death peacefully? Why do we keep people alive who are in constant pain and/or incapacitated and non-functioning and would just like to die? Why is that not a humane option, even if a person is NOT terminally ill? Why can't people have the moral choice about when and how to end their lives? Does that mean cruelty and suffering is moral? And that begs the question, why is choosing a personal death immoral?

You are right, to say "reduce suffering" means nothing to sociopaths who don't possess empathy. That's why we get responses like "genocide." Didn't Jesus teach you about the golden rule? He heard it from the Greeks hundreds of years before.

Foil wrote:Most Christians I've known will simply answer that "God, as the highest power / love / creator, needs no external moral basis."

Personally, I think that's a bit of a deflection, as it only works under the assumption that good is simply a synonym for God's will (i.e. "God cannot do evil by definition").

What I find fault with is the inconsistency when Christians expect me to have a complete answer to what I base my morality on when they don't expect God to base his morality on anything.

My definition of morality is to take on the very nature of God. lol, but how can people who believe in God actually have this conversation with those who don't? It's impossible, because no matter what you said, the other cannot believe it, and then there's the fact that they don't believe...............................

Jeff250 wrote:

Foil wrote:Most Christians I've known will simply answer that "God, as the highest power / love / creator, needs no external moral basis."

Personally, I think that's a bit of a deflection, as it only works under the assumption that good is simply a synonym for God's will (i.e. "God cannot do evil by definition").

What I find fault with is the inconsistency when Christians expect me to have a complete answer to what I base my morality on when they don't expect God to base his morality on anything.

But God does have a basis for his "morality", if you want to call it that. Since God is the creator, it's actually kind of odd to ascribe created attributes--attributes that are taken on--to him, which is why I put the quotes around morality. What we might understand as God's morality, if we're talking about it in those terms, is in fact God's nature applied to any situation. Plenty of examples in the Bible. God's morality is based upon God's unchanging character traits, applied to a situation in light of ALL of the facts. I would make the statement that this is why it is so easy for so many to find fault with God's morality. We are not in possession of all of the facts, and our judgment is often shaded by personal desires or interests. The argument for accepting God's morality does not come from a complete grasp--a scientific review of all of the facts, necessarily (which is just about impossible), but by being able to see from what we do understand that God's traits shown through in any situation, are good and true to their Biblical presentation.

That's my judgment on it, FYI. It's not a regurgitation of a Sunday lesson.

Also I think it is clear from the scriptures (if you read the Bible in more than a casual way), that God's morality for us is based upon humanity's best good, and God's requirements for justice and righteousness (which I suppose would best be summed-up as being like God in character).

vision wrote:You are right, to say "reduce suffering" means nothing to sociopaths who don't possess empathy. That's why we get responses like "genocide." Didn't Jesus teach you about the golden rule? He heard it from the Greeks hundreds of years before.

I never met Jesus and he is a difficult fellow to get a hold of so seek another form of insult if that's your goal....
My 'morality teachers' were my parents for the most part and my peers, fellow citizens, authors, poets etc. and, of course, my sense of empathy for the rest.

You can attribute it to, and follow either, or both authorities but it always works the same. So you dont need religion to establish morality or to have a sense of it personally but it always seems to have a man made authority component to it.
It's more than raw empathy. Empathy is a natural instinctive state of mind/emotion. Morality is a man made concept that is learned. Like time, it can be measured and feels like a natural experience but the benchmarks are totally man made and without the benchmarks it is nothing.

ST wrote:God's morality is based upon God's unchanging character traits, applied to a situation in light of ALL of the facts. I would make the statement that this is why it is so easy for so many to find fault with God's morality. We are not in possession of all of the facts, and our judgment is often shaded by personal desires or interests.

What I'm asking about then is what you call God's unchanging character traits. What are those based on?

That's an odd question, because it asks for certain assumptions to be made about God. These assumptions are at odds with the Bible's account of who and what God is.

Colossians 1 wrote:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Of "wisdom"

Proberbs 8 wrote:22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way,
before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning,
or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth;
when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled,
before the hills was I brought forth:
26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields,
nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there:
when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28 When he established the clouds above:
when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
29 When he gave to the sea his decree,
that the waters should not pass his commandment:
when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him:
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing always before him;
31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth;
and my delights were with the sons of men.

Isaiah 57 wrote:15 For thus says the High and Lofty One
Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: ...

Isaiah 44 wrote:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.

So if God created everything, including time and space, and if God "brought forth" wisdom, how can you ask what God's character is based on? What is there for it to be based on? The word "based" cannot apply. You might say God is the base.

It's fair for you to say that God's moral nature isn't based on anything, because I don't have a good answer for what my moral nature is based on either. But all I ask then is that you will not find people in general who do not have a good answer for what they base their moral nature on as somehow deficient.

Is that really the conclusion of all of this? Because I was about to point out that you can't debate God unless you're going to accept the definition of God. The nature of a thing cannot be changed in order to debate it, it can only be disproved. The beauty of that, in my mind, is that it leaves you (us) with just one question about the God of the Bible, and it isn't whether he is more or less moral than atheists (a flawed line of argument that leads ignorant people around in circles)--it's whether he is who he says he is. Ultimately that's how every religion is properly judged. It's not "does it benefit humanity more than it hurts it", or does it have some effect on people in society that we consider to be positive. IS IT TRUE? More precisely, does it live up to its claims?

Read Job. When God finally came down and rebuked him for "multiplying words without knowledge". How did God fault him?

How do I test whether God's moral nature is good if God's moral nature isn't based on anything?