Moral Argument for God: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Moral Argument for God » Moral Argument for God

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Last

Moral Argument for God

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 903

Posted 06/02/07 - 04:13 PM:	#61
pedja777 wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: Suppose for instance I rob a bank because it benefits me. You might say what I did was wrong because it did not benefit the group. Why should I care about benefiting the group? Because it's what one ought to do...and then we get to the same problem. What transcendent source of authority says what people ought to do? Theism provides an answer, atheism does not. You posted this example in several of your posts thinking that somehow you proved the existence of god with it, and discredited utilitarian beliefs too. Well, I think I provided evidence for the existence of God. I don't think I discredited utilitarian beliefs, only that utilitarianism by itself doesn't solve the problem of "what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be?" The statement "one ought to benefit the group" doesn't really solve this problem, but only brings us back to where we started. Why aren’t you a robber? There are several reasons for it, other than morality. [Describes fear of punishment, the difficulty of getting away with it] Now, let’s talk about those people who simply don’t do it because it seems immoral to them. [Explains reasons] That nicely explains why I and others do not rob banks, but it doesn't explain why it's morally wrong. Even if there was no fear of punishment (suppose there was no government) and even if I was a complete sociopath who had no empathy etc. it would still be wrong for me to rob banks. It would still be the case that "I ought not to steal." So we still have the problem of locating morality's transcendent source of authority. The best a non-theist could argue is that reality says I ought not to steal, but then that leads us into the problems I mentioned earlier. Now to the question of morality and evolution: look at the animal kingdom! Animals with bigger, more evolved brains (such as monkeys, elephants, hypos, dolphins, whales, etc. versus bacteria, fish, lizards etc.), are generally more morally evolved than others, and can show acts of compassion and empathy. Animals with brains are more able to help the group, which in turn allows everyone to survive. These animals—even the most intelligent one on your list—are also quite capable of cruelty, as even Jane Goodall's Wild Chimpanzees documents. look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8mzz8xt6AU How do you explain this, or do you just choose to ignore it? No, I won't choose to ignore it. What happens in the video is actually quite fascinating. How do I explain it? A crocodile is a hippo's natural enemy (especially as a calf), and adult hippos are by instinct extremely hostile to them. Additionally, hippos are also gregarious, and so this one might have "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of instinctive thinking built into its system. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the hippo in the video was a female (mother hippos by instinct are ferociously protective of their young for years—including such protection against crocodiles). By some fluke the maternal instinct might have been transferred onto another species (although perhaps rare, it is not unheard of). In any case, even if the idea of morality is built into our system (and perhaps to some extent those of other species, particularly gregarious and pack animals that are programmed by evolution to help others) none of this really explains how or why morality exists. And none of this really answers the question I proposed above. Why not make other species immoral as to make it easier for us to kill them I'm not convinced that animals are moral agents. Apart from that, animals fight and kill each other all the time! I suspect the reason why animals aren't more "immoral" than they are now is for survival (utilitarian) purposes. After all, why did God wait almost five billion years (which is, I think, roughly the age of Earth, and we homo sapiens are in existence for about 200,000 years) to create such moral creatures like us? Even if God exists, I am still no telepath and would pretty much have to speculate on that answer. Maybe evolution has some kind of beauty to it that God appreciates. In any case, if God exists his ways (being infinitely intelligent) are far beyond ours. We cannot reasonably expect to understand the "why" behind everything, and perhaps we cannot even reasonably expect to understand the why behind most things. Why not do it right away, or did he just choose to deceive us with this long period between life formation and humans, so we would make this nonsense evolution theory up in order to test our faith? Creationists would say that the evidence does not at all point to evolution, but rather points to a Biblical creation and there is no deception involved. (I'm not a Biblical creationist, I was just playing the devil's advocate.)
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

pedja777
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

Posted 06/03/07 - 03:33 PM:	#62
Tisthammerw wrote: Well, I think I provided evidence for the existence of God. I don't think I discredited utilitarian beliefs, only that utilitarianism by itself doesn't solve the problem of "what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be?" The statement "one ought to benefit the group" doesn't really solve this problem, but only brings us back to where we started. I’m sorry, but I find your evidence to be very weak at best. See, I argue that people are moral because it increases our chances of survival, and I actually find people to be, on average, not that moral at all. In fact, people did more damage to this planet than any other species. We are responsible for more cruelty, killings, even extinctions of the whole other species, than any other living organism on earth, and we are the only ones capable of destroying the whole planet; so, again, I claim that if we were any less moral, we wouldn’t be here today. But, you may say, this again doesn’t prove how we have this moral code in us? Brain evolution makes perfect sense to me, but you’ll keep on questioning its origin, and you’ll keep on denying the undeniable. Actually, your argument, in my opinion, is similar to questioning any other distinguishable feature on humans; i.e. why do we have five fingers on each hand, or why do we have two symmetrical sides, two arms and two legs, why are we capable of questioning all these things… why anything is the way it is, really? Well, the laziest, or the easiest way to answer these is by calling everything: god’s will. Now, if we start with physical and psychological traits of living organisms, then we may continue with the events too, right? Namely, Cleveland beat Detroit because it was god’s will, Bush is killing Iraqis because god wants him to (the saddest thing is that he probably believes this), and so on. In other words, everything is predetermined. Out of all theories I’ve ever come across in any field I despise this one the most. If this was so then life wouldn’t make sense to me at all, and god would be this evil freak who’s just playing with us. For the similar reasons I despise Calvinism, or any teachings of Armenianism for that matter. In fact, as you’ve probably noticed by now, I’m not fond of any religion at all. In any case, the question remains: “why are we moral?” I find evolution to be a very reasonable explanation, while your explanation is just wishful thinking! Tisthammerw wrote: That nicely explains why I and others do not rob banks, but it doesn't explain why it's morally wrong. Even if there was no fear of punishment (suppose there was no government) and even if I was a complete sociopath who had no empathy etc. it would still be wrong for me to rob banks. It would still be the case that "I ought not to steal." So we still have the problem of locating morality's transcendent source of authority. The best a non-theist could argue is that reality says I ought not to steal, but then that leads us into the problems I mentioned earlier. Wow, so many assumptions (don’t you know that when you ‘assume’ something you’re making an ass out of you and me.) (1) Suppose there was no government? If there was no government or punishment for stealing such society would last until everybody realized that stealing is unbeneficial and self-destroyable, or until some sort of government is established—I don’t think we’re yet morally evolved enough to live in anarchy, and I don’t think we ever will be; we’ll probably destroy ourselves first. (2) Suppose you were a complete sociopath who had no empathy? If you were such a person then you wouldn’t know the difference from right and wrong, and that’s a fact! Such a person, if he commits an immoral act that is punishable by law, gets the verdict “innocent for reasons of insanity.” In fact, there have been cases where even a moderate brain injury distorts a person’s view of what is right and what isn’t, and he ends up doing things he never would’ve done if no injury happened. In addition, people who get drunk, or drugged, or who are mentally ill (like schizophrenics) DO NOT know that difference either. Tisthammerw wrote: Animals with brains are more able to help the group, which in turn allows everyone to survive. These animals—even the most intelligent one on your list—are also quite capable of cruelty, as even Jane Goodall's Wild Chimpanzees documents. Oh, and humans aren’t? Your example proves nothing! In fact, it just strengthens my utilitarianism views. Tisthammerw wrote: I also wouldn’t be surprised if the hippo in the video was a female (mother hippos by instinct are ferociously protective of their young for years—including such protection against crocodiles). By some fluke the maternal instinct might have been transferred onto another species (although perhaps rare, it is not unheard of). It was a male hippo! Tisthammerw wrote: I'm not convinced that animals are moral agents. Apart from that, animals fight and kill each other all the time! I suspect the reason why animals aren't more "immoral" than they are now is for survival (utilitarian) purposes. Maybe this http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=sto... article will make you change your mind. Tisthammerw wrote: Creationists would say that the evidence does not at all point to evolution, but rather points to a Biblical creation and there is no deception involved. (I'm not a Biblical creationist, I was just playing the devil's advocate.) Ah yes, the good old creationists. First there was Young Earth creationism, then Gap creationism, Progressive creationism, and then finally the Evolutionary creationism. Each of these HYPOTHESES makes god less and less involved in creation (see the pattern here), letting the nature take its course in the last one, and each of them more-or-less contradict each other. Whenever they encounter something scientifically not clear yet they explain it by God’s intervention. However, when science comes to indisputable proves about these questionable points, they modify their ‘theory’ by trying to fit this new evidence in. All in all we still haven’t answered any questions really (that’s philosophy for you, which is why I’m a mathematician), and we never will. I find atheistic views to be more accurate, you don’t, and I don’t think either of us is going to persuade the other one otherwise. But, I have to tell you, I sure hope you’re right!

pedja777
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

Posted 06/03/07 - 03:33 PM:	#63
Tisthammerw wrote: Well, I think I provided evidence for the existence of God. I don't think I discredited utilitarian beliefs, only that utilitarianism by itself doesn't solve the problem of "what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be?" The statement "one ought to benefit the group" doesn't really solve this problem, but only brings us back to where we started. I’m sorry, but I find your evidence to be very weak at best. See, I argue that people are moral because it increases our chances of survival, and I actually find people to be, on average, not that moral at all. In fact, people did more damage to this planet than any other species. We are responsible for more cruelty, killings, even extinctions of the whole other species, than any other living organism on earth, and we are the only ones capable of destroying the whole planet; so, again, I claim that if we were any less moral, we wouldn’t be here today. But, you may say, this again doesn’t prove how we have this moral code in us? Brain evolution makes perfect sense to me, but you’ll keep on questioning its origin, and you’ll keep on denying the undeniable. Actually, your argument, in my opinion, is similar to questioning any other distinguishable feature on humans; i.e. why do we have five fingers on each hand, or why do we have two symmetrical sides, two arms and two legs, why are we capable of questioning all these things… why anything is the way it is, really? Well, the laziest, or the easiest way to answer these is by calling everything: god’s will. Now, if we start with physical and psychological traits of living organisms, then we may continue with the events too, right? Namely, Cleveland beat Detroit because it was god’s will, Bush is killing Iraqis because god wants him to (the saddest thing is that he probably believes this), and so on. In other words, everything is predetermined. Out of all theories I’ve ever come across in any field I despise this one the most. If this was so then life wouldn’t make sense to me at all, and god would be this evil freak who’s just playing with us. For the similar reasons I despise Calvinism, or any teachings of Armenianism for that matter. In fact, as you’ve probably noticed by now, I’m not fond of any religion at all. In any case, the question remains: “why are we moral?” I find evolution to be a very reasonable explanation, while your explanation is just wishful thinking! Tisthammerw wrote: That nicely explains why I and others do not rob banks, but it doesn't explain why it's morally wrong. Even if there was no fear of punishment (suppose there was no government) and even if I was a complete sociopath who had no empathy etc. it would still be wrong for me to rob banks. It would still be the case that "I ought not to steal." So we still have the problem of locating morality's transcendent source of authority. The best a non-theist could argue is that reality says I ought not to steal, but then that leads us into the problems I mentioned earlier. Wow, so many assumptions (don’t you know that when you ‘assume’ something you’re making an ass out of you and me.) (1) Suppose there was no government? If there was no government or punishment for stealing such society would last until everybody realized that stealing is unbeneficial and self-destroyable, or until some sort of government is established—I don’t think we’re yet morally evolved enough to live in anarchy, and I don’t think we ever will be; we’ll probably destroy ourselves first. (2) Suppose you were a complete sociopath who had no empathy? If you were such a person then you wouldn’t know the difference from right and wrong, and that’s a fact! Such a person, if he commits an immoral act that is punishable by law, gets the verdict “innocent for reasons of insanity.” In fact, there have been cases where even a moderate brain injury distorts a person’s view of what is right and what isn’t, and he ends up doing things he never would’ve done if no injury happened. In addition, people who get drunk, or drugged, or who are mentally ill (like schizophrenics) DO NOT know that difference either. Tisthammerw wrote: Animals with brains are more able to help the group, which in turn allows everyone to survive. These animals—even the most intelligent one on your list—are also quite capable of cruelty, as even Jane Goodall's Wild Chimpanzees documents. Oh, and humans aren’t? Your example proves nothing! In fact, it just strengthens my utilitarianism views. Tisthammerw wrote: I also wouldn’t be surprised if the hippo in the video was a female (mother hippos by instinct are ferociously protective of their young for years—including such protection against crocodiles). By some fluke the maternal instinct might have been transferred onto another species (although perhaps rare, it is not unheard of). It was a male hippo! Tisthammerw wrote: I'm not convinced that animals are moral agents. Apart from that, animals fight and kill each other all the time! I suspect the reason why animals aren't more "immoral" than they are now is for survival (utilitarian) purposes. Maybe this http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=sto... article will make you change your mind. Tisthammerw wrote: Creationists would say that the evidence does not at all point to evolution, but rather points to a Biblical creation and there is no deception involved. (I'm not a Biblical creationist, I was just playing the devil's advocate.) Ah yes, the good old creationists. First there was Young Earth creationism, then Gap creationism, Progressive creationism, and then finally the Evolutionary creationism. Each of these HYPOTHESES makes god less and less involved in creation (see the pattern here), letting the nature take its course in the last one, and each of them more-or-less contradict each other. Whenever they encounter something scientifically not clear yet they explain it by God’s intervention. However, when science comes to indisputable proofs about these questionable points, they modify their ‘theory’ by trying to fit this new evidence in. All in all we still haven’t answered any questions really (that’s philosophy for you, which is why I’m a mathematician), and we never will. I find atheistic views to be more accurate, you don’t, and I don’t think either of us is going to persuade the other one otherwise. But, I have to tell you, I sure hope you’re right! Edited by pedja777 on 06/03/07 - 03:39 PM

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 903

Posted 06/03/07 - 04:46 PM:	#64
pedja777 wrote: I’m sorry, but I find your evidence to be very weak at best. If so, what is the basis for objective moral values? What transcendent source of authority says what ought to be? Statements like "I argue that people are moral because it increases our chances of survival," even if true, do not answer this question. I'm not trying to explain why we believe in moral values or why we behave morally, I'm trying to explain why objective moral values exist. People should not steal. Why? Because doing so harms the group. Why should I care about what happens to the group? Because the health of the group is what ought to be. But that brings us back to the question at hand. What transcendent source of authority says what ought to be? It was a male hippo! How do you know this?
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

pedja777
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/03/07 - 06:11 PM:	#65
swstephe wrote: "People are moral if they have blue eyes". Well, if I can show you one person who is moral and has brown eyes, then it's false, (and eye color is irrelevant). Not quite, your statement wouldn’t be proved wrong by finding a moral person with brown eyes since your statement says nothing about people with brown eyes. What you are saying is that all people with blue eyes are moral, so this statement wouldn’t be disproved by finding a brown-eyed moral person. Consider this similar example: people are tall if they play basketball (assuming there are no Boykinses, this statement is generally true). Now, this certainly means that all basketball players are tall, but it says nothing about volleyball players, for example. In fact, they might be even taller, and if you found one such tall volleyball player the original statement “people are tall if they play basketball” still holds. However, if we write “people are tall if AND ONLY IF they play basketball” then you covered it both ways; i.e. people are tall if they play basketball AND people play basketball if they are tall, which, in other words, means that all people who play basketball are tall AND all tall people play basketball. In short, the above mumbo-jumbo leads to one little correction: you should’ve written "People are moral if and only if they have blue eyes," and everything else holds. By the way, I agree with you.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2154

Posted 06/03/07 - 06:52 PM:	#66
Yep -- you are right, I should have started with "People are moral if and only if they have blue eyes", especially since the analogy would be: "people are moral if and only if they are theists".
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

pedja777
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/03/07 - 07:32 PM:	#67
Tisthammerw wrote: If so, what is the basis for objective moral values? What transcendent source of authority says what ought to be? Statements like "I argue that people are moral because it increases our chances of survival," even if true, do not answer this question. I'm not trying to explain why we believe in moral values or why we behave morally, I'm trying to explain why objective moral values exist. People should not steal. Why? Because doing so harms the group. Why should I care about what happens to the group? Because the health of the group is what ought to be. But that brings us back to the question at hand. What transcendent source of authority says what ought to be? How do you know this? Here we go again: “What transcendent source of authority says what ought to be?” This question is so pointless. I, for one, don’t think there is an objective moral law. I think that all moral laws (even the one that says “thou shalt not kill”) are relative to the context. For example, if you had a chance to kill Hitler in the middle (or at the end, for that matter) of WWII I think it would be morally, ethically, and any other which way, acceptable. But, let’s say moral laws are universal. Let’s say they are the same throughout our universe. You claim that this proves the existence of god since, your question is, “what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be?” Well, it’s the same transcendent source that says what the weight or electrical charge of an electron should be everywhere in the universe (if it were different by an infinitesimal amount no atoms would form, and we certainly wouldn’t be here), the same transcendent source that says how strong any of the four forces should be everywhere in the universe (again, even the smallest variation in any of the four forces would mean our non-existence), the same transcendent source that makes the speed of light the same everywhere in the universe, and so on. You call this source god, and it might be, I hope it is, but I think it is just one of an infinite number of possible outcomes. There might be universes where there are no atoms, no life, then there might be those where conditions for life are even more favorable, where every planet has life; there might also be universes (or planets in our universe) where moral code is “imperfect” enough so that they self-destruct as soon as they become intelligent enough to do so (do we fall in this category?), and yet, there might be universes (or planets in our universe) where intelligent creatures are morally evolved (or encoded, if you wish) enough in order to self-preserve for eons, and they pity us, like we pity lizards, for our moral imperfection. So, my point is that moral law isn’t much different from any other physical or mental trait of humans, animals, or aliens, objective or not. Your argument that god must exist because we can differentiate between right and wrong is very weak to me. One banal argument against it is “why is the world so evil and unjust then?” since your assumption presumes that god is perfectly righteous and moral. But let’s not go into meaning of life... there is no room for that in this thread. I know the hippo is a male because the narrator says so. Edited by pedja777 on 06/03/07 - 07:37 PM

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 903

Posted 06/09/07 - 02:44 PM:	#68
pedja777 wrote: Here we go again: “What transcendent source of authority says what ought to be?” This question is so pointless. I, for one, don’t think there is an objective moral law. Then the point of arguing seems somewhat moot. I was trying to argue that "objective moral values are evidence for the existence of God." Or rather, "if objective moral values exist, they are evidence for the existence of God." If you are simply going to argue that no objective moral laws exist, this really doesn't address the deductive validity of the reasoning I was using. I think that all moral laws (even the one that says “thou shalt not kill”) are relative to the context. For example, if you had a chance to kill Hitler in the middle (or at the end, for that matter) of WWII I think it would be morally, ethically, and any other which way, acceptable. I think so too. But here you are arguing against moral absolutism, not moral objectivism (there is a difference). The right thing to do does indeed depend upon the context of the situation, but that does not imply the rejection of objective ethics. But, let’s say moral laws are universal. Let’s say they are the same throughout our universe. You claim that this proves the existence of god since, your question is, “what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be?” Well, it’s the same transcendent source that says what the weight or electrical charge of an electron should be everywhere in the universe Keep in mind the idea that the electrical charge is the same everywhere in the universe is a much different statement from saying the charge of an electron should be the same everywhere. May I ask what transcendent source of authority says this is the way things should be? You haven't identified it. Of course, you could say that the “transcendent source of authority” behind moral values (e.g. one ought not to kill) is reality. It is reality says what ought to be. Reality—unlike fallible humans—cannot be mistaken about what is right, and it is reality in some general sense that says what ought to be. It’s just that there isn’t any specific component of the universe (as a person or culture) that says it’s wrong, but rather the universe itself. By attributing the universe with supreme metaphysical authority over right and wrong above us mortals, this would by definition be accepting some form of pantheism. A more general definition of God is “the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality.” Pantheism is simply equating God with the universe/reality/existence (it should be noted that some of the traditional aspects of God—like omnipotence and consciousness—are not necessarily associated with pantheism). But even if we accept the most atheistic form of pantheism, this God would by necessity possess several interesting characteristics. This pantheistic God might not contain consciousness but would have to possess supremely transcendent moral authority (transcending all peoples and cultures) while also possessing perfect moral correctness (it cannot be mistaken about what is right). This pantheistic God must also be omnipresent—assuming morals are valid and binding regardless of who you are and where you are. Interestingly, this pantheistic God must also be incorporeal if objective morality is not dependent on collections of atoms. Suppose for instance we took everything away from the physical universe except Mount Rushmore. Would Mount Rushmore be the source of objective moral values? No, moral values are incorporeal and their underlying basis (the supreme metaphysical reality that says what ought to be) must also be incorporeal. This pantheistic God must also be eternal—assuming morals are valid and binding regardless of when you are. Yet the necessity of a God that is transcendent, eternal, omnipresent, incorporeal and perfectly moral is treading awfully close to theism. Not to mention a moral God sounds an awful lot like a person. So even if it’s not an outright proof, to the very least the existence of objective morality still provides strong evidence for theism (by implying the existence of a God that is transcendent, omnipresent, perfectly moral etc.). I mentioned this point earlier in the thread (and in a web page of mine). I know the hippo is a male because the narrator says so. I think you are mistaken. I saw the youtube video again and didn't hear the hippo's gender mentioned.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 759

Posted 06/09/07 - 09:57 PM:	#69
Tisthammerw wrote: By attributing the universe with supreme metaphysical authority over right and wrong above us mortals, this would by definition be accepting some form of pantheism. A more general definition of God is “the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality.” Pantheism is simply equating God with the universe/reality/existence (it should be noted that some of the traditional aspects of God��"like omnipotence and consciousness��"are not necessarily associated with pantheism). But even if we accept the most atheistic form of pantheism, this God would by necessity possess several interesting characteristics. This pantheistic God might not contain consciousness but would have to possess supremely transcendent moral authority (transcending all peoples and cultures) while also possessing perfect moral correctness (it cannot be mistaken about what is right). This pantheistic God must also be omnipresent��"assuming morals are valid and binding regardless of who you are and where you are. Interestingly, this pantheistic God must also be incorporeal if objective morality is not dependent on collections of atoms. Suppose for instance we took everything away from the physical universe except Mount Rushmore. Would Mount Rushmore be the source of objective moral values? No, moral values are incorporeal and their underlying basis (the supreme metaphysical reality that says what ought to be) must also be incorporeal. This pantheistic God must also be eternal��"assuming morals are valid and binding regardless of when you are. Interesting. Could you indicate why you believe an entity would need to be present to be the source of objective morals? Is it like claiming that you need to have a policeman around for there to be criminal laws in society? What is it about a God that makes morals valid and binding (and apparently requires his presence to do so)?

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 903

Posted 06/10/07 - 02:10 PM:	#70
mric wrote: Interesting. Could you indicate why you believe an entity would need to be present to be the source of objective morals? Is it like claiming that you need to have a policeman around for there to be criminal laws in society? No, it's more like you need a lawgiver for there to be criminal laws in society. In ethics, what you need is some kind of metaphysical basis for objective moral values. I’ve explained this sort of thing before in this thread and my web page, but for now I don’t mind explaining it again. Before I go on, let's first examine the nature of what I’ll call should-statements (and, synonymously, ought-statements). Examples of should-statements are “You should not eat spaghetti with your fingers” and “My stapler should be blue.” The basis of the truth of the latter should-statement is an individual; in this case myself. While I believe this ought-statement to be true (my stapler ought to be blue) it is nonetheless a matter of personal taste rather than an objective truth. Some ought-statements have their basis in the culture. For instance, in the culture of the United States eating certain foods with your hands (e.g. a spaghetti) is not considered good manners. As with the should-statement about my stapler, I believe this statement is true (one should not eat spaghetti with one's fingers). But again the veracity for statements like these is relative. In this case of manners, the source of such veracity is the culture. What one culture considers good manners another may not. Ethics is another example of a should-statement. For instance, “Thou shalt not kill” simply means “one should not kill.” Yet if different people have different ethical ideas of the way things ought to be, who decides what ought to be? Hitler thought he should commit genocide, though many other people disagree. In the horrors of the Holocaust, most of us intuitively recognize there is something in reality—transcending what anyone says or thinks—that says such genocides are not the way it ought to be. But what is this “something”? In determining the source and basis for objective moral values, the key question becomes what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be? And why would it be that some ought-statements are matters of personal taste and others are not? What is it about a God that makes morals valid and binding (and apparently requires his presence to do so)? By definition, God is the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality transcending all else. Thus, if objective moral values were grounded in the heart of God they would possess a supremely transcendent source of authority. In contrast, atheism provides no source for morality. Ethics being grounded in God explains why moral values transcend humanity. It also explains why some should-statements are matters of personal taste and why others are not. All things considered, I think God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.