Thread: What makes morality moral?

Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God? The first horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is moral is commanded by God because it is moral) implies that morality is independent of God and, indeed, that God is bound by morality just as his creatures are. God then becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge.

The second horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is moral is moral because it is commanded by God, known as divine command theory) runs into three main problems. First, it implies that what is good is arbitrary, based merely upon God's whim; if God had created the world to include the values that rape, murder, and torture were virtues, while mercy and charity were vices, then they would have been. Secondly, it implies that calling God good makes no non-tautological sense (or, at best, that one is simply saying that God is consistent and not hypocritical). Thirdly, it involves a form of reasoning that G.E. Moore classified as a naturalistic fallacy; to explain the claim that murder is wrong (or the prescription that one should not commit murder), in terms of what God has or hasn't said is to argue from what Moore classified as a putative fact about the world to what Moore classified as a value (see is-ought problem).
If What God decrees is morally right; then if God said murder is moral; we would think "hold on, no it isn't." Hence the morals are coming from us rather than his laws.

There is also the problem of how one distinguishes a hypothetical God from a hypothetical Devil. Assuming that morality is handed down by some higher power, how is the earthly mortal to tell whether the being he obeys is a benevolent entity or a malevolent one? If humans must judge the commands of a supernatural entity to determine the entity's benevolence, they must already possess knowledge of morality to make such a judgment.

Most theists I know wouldn't make the claim that morality is dictated by a supernatural being, but rather that the meaning of life would disappear if God did not exist, since no action could change the inevitable outcome of life: death. Hence, morality would be meaningless.

I think this more common argument is as weak as the first, but I'm too lazy to point out its obvious shortcomings right now.

Morality is ones own "Code of Conduct" I beleive it can be aindepndent of Relegion but Relegion does play a big part in Morality nonetheless thats un-deniable.

Sandform, that is a great point. I am looking forward to seeing a theist's answer to it.

I have for a long time wondered why religious people are so worshipful and submissive to God. I can't think of any reason other than that they are afraid of him and think he can protect them. If they suddenly found out that God has all of the powers they always believed he has except it turns out that he does not have the power to hurt them or to protetct them, I think they really might suddenly stop being so praising and submissive. They might start asking where in the world he gets off thinking he gets to make all of these rules and demanding worship. What would give him that position other than his supposed powers to harm and protect? Without those, he is just some dude.

Originally Posted by Sandform

OK. I'm just trying to point this out to people who seem to think atheists have no morals.

Alright so theists, morals come from deities to you apparently. Alright so what makes the deities version of morality moral? Is it because he was first? So what if there is no god, wouldn't humans be first? So essentially if there is no god then our morals are just as reasonable to exist as a theistic moral right?
Lets put this in contrast. Say there is no deity, then all that's left is humans. If we create consciousness of some sort in another thing of our own design, lets say technological consciousness, would that mean that anything we tell them as morality is what is moral?

So please, stop your ignorant bull shit about saying atheists have no morals. That's all, thanks.

Thats the point, any morality is possible under your terms.

..Which is why morals are subjective and change a lot

And if you've read the holy books, you can tell that our morals today did NOT come from them.

^
Not necessarily. They may be a vastly manipulated, and secularised form of the initial morals. There is a prominent scientific comparison if you think carefully.

I see.

Instad of stoning gay people, we just shun them subconciously.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Thats the point, any morality is possible under your terms.

And any morality is possible under your terms as well.


Whatever God decrees, right?

Psychology Student, can you answer Sandform's question?

Originally Posted by Omicron

And any morality is possible under your terms as well.


Whatever God decrees, right?

but its a fixed morality.

Originally Posted by psychology student

but its a fixed morality.

And so is whatever we make if we're powerful enough.


Anyway answer the OP question.

Originally Posted by Sandform

So please, stop your ignorant bull shit about saying atheists have no morals. That's all, thanks.

Who said that?

What question are you talking about?

Here you are:


"Alright so what makes the deities version of morality moral? Is it because he was first? So what if there is no god, wouldn't humans be first? So essentially if there is no god then our morals are just as reasonable to exist as a theistic moral right?

Lets put this in contrast. Say there is no deity, then all that's left is humans. If we create consciousness of some sort in another thing of our own design, lets say technological consciousness, would that mean that anything we tell them as morality is what is moral?"

Here it is:

The question is invalid. When God has been proven not to exist than I will answer this question.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Here it is:

The question is invalid. When God has been proven not to exist than I will answer this question.

You realise it's impossible to prove God doesn't exist in the same way it is impossible to prove FSM doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Here it is:

The question is invalid. When God has been proven not to exist than I will answer this question.

The question is not invalid. That is simply a way of avoiding having to question your God.

That is what Theists do when confronted with opposition to god, ignore it or bash it like it is ignorant, ironically.

It is simply putting "another" being in the place of God, does that make that being right because it was first, or it created you?

Originally Posted by Omicron

You realise it's impossible to prove God doesn't exist in the same way it is impossible to prove FSM doesn't exist.

Yes, like it is impossible, at this point at least, to prove that the Hicks particle exists/existed, but it is still significant in theoretical physics community.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Yes, like it is impossible, at this point at least, to prove that the Hicks particle exists/existed, but it is still significant in theoretical physics community.

No... not like that.


As in you cant disprove an invisible pink unicorn, no matter how much human science ever advances really.

In the same way we can never disprove God, the ultimate invisible pink unicorn.


So to refer you to Sandform:


"That is simply a way of avoiding having to question your God.

That is what Theists do when confronted with opposition to god, ignore it or bash it like it is ignorant, ironically.

It is simply putting "another" being in the place of God, does that make that being right because it was first, or it created you?"

Dropout fails at dodging arguments-- He keeps posting.

Either answer the question or gtfo, because you haven't contributed anything.

Look at society and tell me modern morals are crafted around the Torah, the Old Testament, etc.

No, simply believers of such have started cherry picking to keep their beliefs.

Originally Posted by Mark75

If humans can make up religious morals, surely they can make up non-religious ones.

Ah, you missed the point. (both of you)

You can't miss what isn't there.

Really?