Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
So @Maven89 went into this subject in the "what counts for evidence as god" thread, and I figure it deserves its own thread. Specifically, morality in theistic and secular moral systems, along with the moral argument for the existence of god.
I figure we can start with morality in the respective systems, because once you get past the idea that morality cannot exist without god, the moral argument for the existence of god falls to pieces.
--
First of all, morality in theistic moral systems is fairly simple. Morality is typically (I'm just gonna say by my definition of "theistic moral system") derived from the will of a god, a "higher power", and is typically defined in such systems as "that which conforms to the will of god". By this definition, it is trivial to show that without god there can be no morality - after all, if there is no god, there is nothing to conform to and morality becomes meaningless.
Now, I have some serious issues with this definition of morality. For starters, it's entirely independent of any sort of human interest. If god declared it morally right to slowly skin and torture each other to death, then that would be "moral". Every single one of you can say right now that that would be a problem - those who say they would consider that moral simply because god said so are lying. We all instinctively know that there's something wrong with that.
What's more, at that point, I fail to see why I should care about what is or is not moral. If morality has nothing to do with us, and something is moral based simply on the pronouncements of a supernatural being, then equating that definition with the typical dictionary definition for "moral" of "that which is virtuous or good" is a complete equivocation fallacy, akin to someone up on a ladder fixing your roof asking you to pass him more nails, and you giving him a jar of toenail clippings. If god tells you to murder your child, is it virtuous to do it?
The fact is that theistic moral systems offer us no morality to speak of. There is no way to determine what is or is not righteous, because for any command we get from on high, we still have to make a moral judgment - we need to either judge that the commandment is virtuous, or we have to judge that the command-giver is virtuous - otherwise, we cannot be sure that the command is moral. And if we judge the command-giver as moral because he gives the command that he is moral, then we're stuck in a circle.
--
So how do we go about determining what is and is not moral?
Secular moral systems vary greatly, but the one I'm going to present to you is based largely on two things: firstly, our definition of "moral" as "that which furthers the rights, freedoms, and happiness of individual humans and of society", and secondly, the recognition that humans are, by and large, similar. Not all the same, but for any given human, you can make a few statements - life is generally preferable to death; pleasure is generally preferable to pain; et cetera.
From this, you can derive a fairly large number of moral pronouncements just on the basis of empathy - murder is wrong, because I would not like to be murdered (and egocentric morality* is self-refuting). For those who would like to be murdered, murder is wrong because I know it would be something others would not like, and I would not like to have things happen to me which I do not like.
Now, could this be morally wrong? Could there be some absolute moral pronouncements somewhere that offer a completely different morality? Sure! But in this case, we're actually left with a result that makes sense. It's good for humanity and good for us.
*Egocentric morality is basically "it's wrong for you to do X to me, but fine for me to do X to you" - this just doesn't work, because if that's how morals were set up, and two people did X to each other, both would expect the other to be, morally, in the wrong, while expecting themselves to be morally in the right. It's self-refuting, and thus as a result moral maxims cannot be egocentric. This is not to ignore significant differences - if I feed you chocolate and you feed me chocolate, and you're deathly allergic to chocolate, it's not egocentric morality to claim that different rules apply.
--
So finally, The Moral Argument. This argument, in its quintessential form, states:
The first premise is simply wrong on a number of levels. Unless you want to shoehorn in a very specific definition, morality can exist without god. If we want to define morality as I did above when talking about theistic morality, then premise two falls flat, because divine fiat is something that must be demonstrated. It's that equivocation fallacy from before again. Simply because Humans do not go around killing each other does not mean that morality exists when your definition of morality is "that which conforms to the will of god" - you'd need to prove that said will of god exists and that you can interpret it accurately, which, unless you missed it, was the entire purpose of this argument in the first place.
--
So morals are not a good argument for the existence of god. In fact, if you examine the bible and its morality, it's entirely fair to say that we do not derive our morals from the Christian God - a God who sanctions slavery, genocide, mass ****, infinite punishment for finite rewards (the single most unjust thing I can imagine), execution for actions that cause no harm, human sacrifice (and no, I don't mean Isaac, I mean Jephthah and his daughter), and the like. Rather, we get them from the world around us, from our evolved empathy.
Thoughts? Discussion?
I figure we can start with morality in the respective systems, because once you get past the idea that morality cannot exist without god, the moral argument for the existence of god falls to pieces.
--
First of all, morality in theistic moral systems is fairly simple. Morality is typically (I'm just gonna say by my definition of "theistic moral system") derived from the will of a god, a "higher power", and is typically defined in such systems as "that which conforms to the will of god". By this definition, it is trivial to show that without god there can be no morality - after all, if there is no god, there is nothing to conform to and morality becomes meaningless.
Now, I have some serious issues with this definition of morality. For starters, it's entirely independent of any sort of human interest. If god declared it morally right to slowly skin and torture each other to death, then that would be "moral". Every single one of you can say right now that that would be a problem - those who say they would consider that moral simply because god said so are lying. We all instinctively know that there's something wrong with that.
What's more, at that point, I fail to see why I should care about what is or is not moral. If morality has nothing to do with us, and something is moral based simply on the pronouncements of a supernatural being, then equating that definition with the typical dictionary definition for "moral" of "that which is virtuous or good" is a complete equivocation fallacy, akin to someone up on a ladder fixing your roof asking you to pass him more nails, and you giving him a jar of toenail clippings. If god tells you to murder your child, is it virtuous to do it?
The fact is that theistic moral systems offer us no morality to speak of. There is no way to determine what is or is not righteous, because for any command we get from on high, we still have to make a moral judgment - we need to either judge that the commandment is virtuous, or we have to judge that the command-giver is virtuous - otherwise, we cannot be sure that the command is moral. And if we judge the command-giver as moral because he gives the command that he is moral, then we're stuck in a circle.
--
So how do we go about determining what is and is not moral?
Secular moral systems vary greatly, but the one I'm going to present to you is based largely on two things: firstly, our definition of "moral" as "that which furthers the rights, freedoms, and happiness of individual humans and of society", and secondly, the recognition that humans are, by and large, similar. Not all the same, but for any given human, you can make a few statements - life is generally preferable to death; pleasure is generally preferable to pain; et cetera.
From this, you can derive a fairly large number of moral pronouncements just on the basis of empathy - murder is wrong, because I would not like to be murdered (and egocentric morality* is self-refuting). For those who would like to be murdered, murder is wrong because I know it would be something others would not like, and I would not like to have things happen to me which I do not like.
Now, could this be morally wrong? Could there be some absolute moral pronouncements somewhere that offer a completely different morality? Sure! But in this case, we're actually left with a result that makes sense. It's good for humanity and good for us.
*Egocentric morality is basically "it's wrong for you to do X to me, but fine for me to do X to you" - this just doesn't work, because if that's how morals were set up, and two people did X to each other, both would expect the other to be, morally, in the wrong, while expecting themselves to be morally in the right. It's self-refuting, and thus as a result moral maxims cannot be egocentric. This is not to ignore significant differences - if I feed you chocolate and you feed me chocolate, and you're deathly allergic to chocolate, it's not egocentric morality to claim that different rules apply.
--
So finally, The Moral Argument. This argument, in its quintessential form, states:
The first premise is simply wrong on a number of levels. Unless you want to shoehorn in a very specific definition, morality can exist without god. If we want to define morality as I did above when talking about theistic morality, then premise two falls flat, because divine fiat is something that must be demonstrated. It's that equivocation fallacy from before again. Simply because Humans do not go around killing each other does not mean that morality exists when your definition of morality is "that which conforms to the will of god" - you'd need to prove that said will of god exists and that you can interpret it accurately, which, unless you missed it, was the entire purpose of this argument in the first place.
--
So morals are not a good argument for the existence of god. In fact, if you examine the bible and its morality, it's entirely fair to say that we do not derive our morals from the Christian God - a God who sanctions slavery, genocide, mass ****, infinite punishment for finite rewards (the single most unjust thing I can imagine), execution for actions that cause no harm, human sacrifice (and no, I don't mean Isaac, I mean Jephthah and his daughter), and the like. Rather, we get them from the world around us, from our evolved empathy.
Thoughts? Discussion?
Last edited: