There is No Secular Basis for Morality
You don't even have to take it from me. If you want to know Existentialism- my title basically just boiled it down in a nutshell. Take it from Sartre if you don't want to take it from me.
Mark Dice (who I'm not particularly a fan of but who has made some good points at times) has here demonstrated how accepting atheistic premises will lead people to accepting incest as okay.
However, the matter is very basic.
There is simply no secular basis for morality.
Morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective.
Atheists will try to dance around this and you will see some incredible logical gymnastics around this but the plain fact is that when you boil it down.... consistent atheists don't believe in objective morality. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They claim that religions are immoral- but they have no basis for determining what is and isn't immoral.
This is simply the plain truth. For rhetorical purposes, they will try to avoid the plain truth but it is what it is and when you break down what they say when they're being honest- you will see that for all their noble-sounding talk which is meant to propound the alleged morality of their position.... they lack of a basis for morality and are moral relativists. They don't believe in morality. Morality from such a stance is whatever you think it is- if one is consistent.
Mark Dice (who I'm not particularly a fan of but who has made some good points at times) has here demonstrated how accepting atheistic premises will lead people to accepting incest as okay.
However, the matter is very basic.
There is simply no secular basis for morality.
Morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective.
Atheists will try to dance around this and you will see some incredible logical gymnastics around this but the plain fact is that when you boil it down.... consistent atheists don't believe in objective morality. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They claim that religions are immoral- but they have no basis for determining what is and isn't immoral.
This is simply the plain truth. For rhetorical purposes, they will try to avoid the plain truth but it is what it is and when you break down what they say when they're being honest- you will see that for all their noble-sounding talk which is meant to propound the alleged morality of their position.... they lack of a basis for morality and are moral relativists. They don't believe in morality. Morality from such a stance is whatever you think it is- if one is consistent.
Comments (172)
So where does that leave us? That people will have different opinions on morals, and that we need to find ways to agree on certain moral rules as a community, so we can get along.
But theists will presumably have a problem with this because they know objective morality, and so that is above any agreement on the matter. (This isn't the case by the way if you know a bit about Christian history and how much popes have changed 'objective morality' over the years.)
You probably think this is a good argument, but from the perspective of an atheist its actually the opposite, because you deny anyone to have a different opinion then the subjective one you have... and refuse to enter into dialogue about what we can agree on as a community.
How would you respond?
You would probably argue that your own religion is the objectively true religion, that there is plenty of "evidence" supporting it, and that anyone who insults your personal worldview is just biased hater who doesn't actually understand it.
If you would actually like to have an argument about moral foundations, I would be quite interested.
To begin, try and submit a single universally true and objective moral claim, and then I'll actually have something to attack.
If you would like something to actually attack, then I submit that the foundation for objective morality is shared values. When two individuals share common goals and values (or have goals which do not interfere with each other), then they can come to objectively beneficial moral agreements that preserve and promote those values. The desire to go on living is a nearly universally shared value among humans, and is one of the most important points of negotiation in our moral agreements. The desire to be free from oppression, and the freedom to pursue happiness are two other nearly universally shared human values, and like it or not, this is where morality ought to come from.
Let's assume OMVs exist. How do you know what they are? How do you know your moral beliefs are true? If you can't, then how do you know they exist?
Hm. Okay.
Islam, Christianity and Judaism.... actually, insha'Allah I'll leave out Judaism... I don't know too much about Judaism.....
but we look at Islam and Christianity.
Islam is against adultery, lying, stealing, sex outside of marriage, etc.
Christianity too.
Islam and Christianity pretty much agree on a whole lot. A lot of people say pretty much all the religions are pretty much the same. I don't say all religions are the same- but with Islam and Christianity there is a lot in common. A lot of the teachings point in the same direction. The big dispute between Islam and Christianity is Islam says Jesus (PBUH) was a Prophet, whereas Christianity (blasphemously) believes he is God.
As far as morals...... they teach a lot of the same stuff. Islam believes in Tawheed, Christianity tends to believe in the Trinity..... both claim to be monotheistic..... so I think the dispute is in how monotheism actually should be implemented. But as far as accepting that monotheism is the end- I think both agree. Athough Christianity, unfortunately, is subverted and estranged from true monotheism. God is One! But anyways, the religions have similarities.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Let's see. You posit as alleged NUMV- desire to go on living, pursuing happiness, being free from oppression.
Firstly, I have a completely different view of human life. I regard certain types of death as desirable. I don't see death as you do.
Whether you are Muslim or Christian- you should be willing to die for what you believe in. My hope is that Allah will grant me a good death. For example, if I die defending my family or if I die while in Mecca- these are good deaths. I hope fervently for a good death.
For a Christian, for example- suppose the AntiChrist described in Revelation arrives and Christians have to die for their religion...... as a Muslim or a Christian, you should be willing to die for your beliefs. Therefore life is not the ultimate goal. You should not be afraid of death.
I don't find the thing about continuing living- I don't find it universal or even desirable. At any moment's notice, you (if you believe in God) should be prepared to give your life for what you believe.
Happiness? I don't care about happiness. Happiness is in Jannah (heaven).
This life is.... difficult. Forget happiness. Should you attain happiness in this life (which I sort of doubt).... Masha'Allah. Should you not attain it in this life..... it is what it is.
Forget happiness and self-preservation. It is destined that we shall die and happiness in this world is not the goal. The goal is Jannah- to attain Paradise.
Okay, the third thing- freedom from oppression.
I doubt you have the same understanding of oppression I have. We are not driven by the same motives. I want to serve Allah, attain Jannah and receive Allah's forgiveness for my sins.
We are simply not driven by the same considerations- totally different worlds. I might use periods at the end of my sentences and you might do the same and we both might have two legs and two arms but we are very different and we are not driven by the same values and presuppositions.
Actually, this is very easy.
Knowledge of right and wrong are innate. Humans are born knowing right and wrong.
Islam is the innate religion- Alhamdulilaah! So of course elements of what Islam teaches can be found in religious traditions across in the world. Not only is that not surprising but predictable given what Islam teaches about itself.
As far as defining morality.... I would say morality is "right and wrong". Knowledge of morality I think is knowing right and wrong. But I'm not a dictionary.
Non-objective morality is no morality. It translates to "I can do whatever I want".
The fact is a moral relativist will still get upset if you grab their wallet.
Also, morality isn't determined by what a pope says.
Now as far as me probably thinking this is a good argument.... a good argument for what????
It is obvious that there is no secular basis for morality. X = X. It means itself.
I don't think it necessarily disproves atheism. There is no secular basis for morality means there is no secular basis for morality.
If I was an atheist and I was being honest I think I would agree and say it is a tragic but necessary aspect of accepting the reality of our existence.
That contradicts your hypothesis that religion is necessary to ground morality.
Does it? Let me look at it. Ahem. Let's see.
Quoting Ram
Quoting Janus
Ah.
There is no contradiction. Humans are born believing in God. Maybe you assume people are static. However, people are changing.
Babies are born pure and then corrupted.
I cannot see how it is possible to "believe in God" without possessing linguistic ability; so humans cannot be born believing in God. Maybe it could be argued that humans are born with an innate sense of the divine or of oneness, but that is something else. Also, "believing in God" takes many forms.
You say babies are "born pure and then corrupted". In one sense that may be true. In another sense, it could be said that babies are born utterly selfish and then (hopefully) civilized such that they become capable of considering others.
Well maybe you cannot see how it is possible that babies are born believing in God. However, nevertheless it is true. Babies are born as believers. Babies are born pure. Then corrupted.
Abu Hurairah reported the Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) as saying :
Every child is born on Islam, but his parents make him a Jew and a Christian, just as a beast is born whole. Do you find some among them (born) maimed? The people asked : Messenger of Allah! What do you think about the one who died while he was young? He replied : Allah knows best what he was going to do.
https://sunnah.com/abudawud/42/119
The moral life is entirely secular.
In so far as adultery is a form of lying, I also condemn it, but what of a woman who has fled from/escaped an arranged marriage and found love elsewhere? Technically she would still be married to her former husband and would be committing adultery. Should she return to her original husband because of the sacredness of marital unions? What about consensual open marriages?
Is it a sin to steal for basic sustenance? Should a parent be punished if stealing food was their only means of feeding their children?
Is it always a sin to lie? What if you have to tell a lie in order to save a life?
The truth of whether or not it is moral to do these things changes with circumstance, but I understand the gist of these laws. Unless there is good justification to do otherwise, we should not be lying to, stealing from, or killing one another. But these aren't hard-to-come-by moral positions; everybody already intuitively understands that being free from theft, deception, and murder is desirable; we never needed religion to convince people that we should have a society where theft and murder are forbidden, even a child can figure that out.
What religions disagree about is much more interesting and much more consequential. Do we pray to Jesus or don't we? What day is Sabbath? Which religion should control the holy sites in Palestine/Israel? Even within any one of the three Abrahamic faiths there is widespread disagreement about how we should live. Is scripture literal or metaphor? Should we be paying tithes to a central establishment or is faith about having a personal relationship with god? Should we each make our own interpretations of scripture or should we listen to the religious authority figures who know better?
The above examples apply to all three religions but here are some more specific ones: Do we do as the prophet did or do we do what the prophet said to do? (and if so, what did the prophet actually do, and what did he actually tell us to do?). Who is the rightful Caliph? Do we really need the pope and does the communal wine/wafer actually turn into the blood and flesh of Christ? With what level of orthodoxy does one need to uphold the old laws? Is it still a sin to pick up sticks on the sabbath "to do work"?. Is pressing a button an equivalent to work and can we get around that law with some other mechanism? What should the penalty for heresy/apostasy be? Is ex-communication necessary? or worse?
There are no obvious answers to these questions, and depending on who you ask you might find people ready to alter the course of their life, even die, to ensure that their answer reigns supreme.
The Abrahamic religions might agree on the basic and easy stuff, but what's left has been enough to turn each of them into disparate factions who all fight among themselves. Meanwhile the world isn;t getting any better...
Quoting Ram
So when you enter Mecca you hope that you suddenly die by accident?
Why?
Free ticket to paradise?
Do you hope that your family is attacked so that you can die defending them? I don't get it. It's possible to have preferences about how we die but still not hope or wish to actually die.
Quoting Ram
I am afraid of death though, especially because I don't believe in heaven.
Quoting Ram
Why? Because you think you're not actually dying, just transitioning to a better afterlife...
What if you're wrong?
Quoting Ram
You sure do seem to care about happiness then... If Jannah doesn't exist and instead of paradise you just get destroyed, are you still so willing to accept an early death? Please be honest with yourself.
Quoting Ram
Jannah is a metaphor for good behavior in this life leading to rewards in... this life...
There is no proof that heaven or hell or angels and demons actually exist, and different cultures have wildly different ideas about these sorts of things...
You had me at don't steal...
I am with you at don't kill...
"Be prepared to accept death at any moment because Janna is the goal", to me, sounds delusional, and you've completely lost me...
Quoting Ram
You don't want to be happy? You don't want to go on living? You don't want to be free from oppression?
How pernicious must a set of beliefs be to get you to embrace death and apocalypse over admitting that there is value in this life beyond being a test for an imaginary next life?
You provide no argument just more assertion. I see no reason to take your word for it. Also, you should be careful as the moderators do not consider this site should be allowed to be used as an organ for proselytizing, which seems to be what you are doing.
Would you happen to be related to Marquis de Sade?
It's not "a form of lying" in an 'open' marriage.
Why should I take your word for it?
I assert my beliefs, others assert theirs. Such is life. If my beliefs are a problem for the mods, so be it.
Perhaps, but such is not philosophy. You are expected to offer argumentation to support your beliefs.
I agree entirely. It's the secular life for me!
I provided some argument for my belief that children cannot be born believing in God; that is the difference between your approach and mine.
If your proselytizing is a problem for the mods you will likely be banned. If that didn't matter to you then I guess it just wouldn't matter.
I'm not.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Sounds delusional? Don't you have any amount of something within you which tells you that you should be prepared to sacrifice yourself for something bigger than yourself?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I have a completely different mindset than you do. I don't think life is about being happy.
This life is temporary and is a test. Oppression? It happens. It is what it is. I have a concept of oppression, probably you too. But what that concept consists of and what role it plays are very different I think in our two minds.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, I didn't say any of that. I simply hope Allah grants me a good death.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
My thinking isn't your thinking. Jannah exists. I don't care about the alleged possibility that it doesn't exist. There is no possibility of it not existing, as it does exist. I don't care what atheists think. I am supposed to strive for Jannah so I hope for Jannah.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The world isn't run by pious religious people.Quoting VagabondSpectre
Divorce is allowed. Furthermore, I think women are allowed to say "no" to an arranged marriage.
I checked. Yes women are allowed to decline an arranged marriage. https://islamqa.info/en/60
The arranged marriage is more the family finds a suitor and it's sort of an offer. The woman isn't forced to marry the man. Islamically, it is up to her.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I think in certain extreme situations a person can lie.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Is it a sin to steal out of hunger? I'm not sure. I think in the hypothetical example you describe it's not punished.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I already get that there are extreme situations where for example a person might be compelled to do something. God is Forgiving and God understands things.
Furthermore, not everyone understands that stealing and murder is wrong. Many people don't believe "wrong" exists. People in general are not moral. Furthermore, morality covers not only murder and stealing but also sexuality. I think we probably have very different views in that department.
Quoting Akanthinos
What one person considers a valid argument is not what another person considers a valid argument. I don't go by the same framework you go by
.Quoting VagabondSpectre
Palestine should belong to the Palestinians.
I don't think there is a Caliphate right now. There was the Ottoman Caliphate and I think that was the last one for now.
I provided an argument as well. My idea of a valid argument isn't yours.
You promote your position, I promote mine.
Thank you for confirming what I've been saying about the atheistic position.
No idea. Marrying your cousin is different than marrying your sister, though. I think it's better not to marry a cousin, though. https://islamqa.info/en/72263
I get that cousin marriages are prevalent in certain places but I think it's more a cultural thing. It's allowed in Islam but I don't think it's recommended.
And what are those methods?
In the context of philosophy an argument from authority is not considered to be sufficient. You would need to make a further argument as to why the authority is correct; in which case the authority itself becomes redundant. You have not done that.
Im not going to murder someone not because I think it is wrong. But because I have no desire to murder and i think it is grotesque. Why should I need an absolute?
Why must I sacrifice my life in the first place? Shouldn't we all just get along and value life?
Quoting Ram
So if god asks you to sacrifice your only son as a test, you would do it?
Quoting Ram
You said "I hope fervently for a good death", and you gave examples of randomly dying at a certain place or dying in defense of your family. My notion of a good death is old age and ideally surrounded by loved ones. Is that tragic? You don;t seem to care about other people (or yourself) so long as you pass your own test.
Quoting Ram
So you aren't willing to honestly asses the truth of your own beliefs, and choose consciously to dogmatically accept and pursue them?
If you were born in India you might be Hindu, and you would be fervently pursuing their values as opposed to your own. If you were born to atheist parents maybe you would be fervently pursuing irreligion and reason...
Quoting Ram
And what if she IS forced? She can then flee and presumably have sex outside of that marriage, right? Even though the original husband may still want her stoned to death for adultery....
Quoting Ram
So "do not steal" should not always be obeyed, right? Doesn't that make it subjective or relative or at least not objective?
Quoting Ram
If you want to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do with their own genitals, then yes we have very different views. Why you think you have any business telling other people how or why or with whom to have sex remains a mystery to me. Should we stone homosexuals to death?
At first when you said people in general are not moral, I was going to outright disagree, people are moral especially in general, but now I'm starting to think that you might just have severely backwards moral beliefs, and so you think "live and let live" is actually somehow immoral...
Quoting Ram
Your personal beliefs won't stop other people from rallying around a Caliph and potentially accusing you of heresy for not also rallying when asked. The Shiites are just wrong, right?
You have your framework, I have mine.
Your framework has not been shown to be philosophical, but merely religious, and hence there is no place for it on a philosophy forum. A religious framework can become philosophical if you can provide at least minimally philosophically acceptable arguments to support it. You have not done that, so, in other words you are on the wrong forum trying to engage with the wrong people.
Well if you have no desire to commit a sin, then that's not really much of a test. The test is not what do you do when you don't have the desire. The test is when you do have the desire.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I am for reason. Islam is for reason. As far as India... I know Muslims from India. I also know a devout Christian who was born to atheist parents. Not everyone follows what their parents believe.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah . They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying.
-Surah Al-An'am [6:116]
Maybe you believe humans in general are moral. I don't.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The world is not a Disney movie. Humans are born into struggle. Things happen.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I didn't say that. The context is considered. I don't think there's a context where theoretically a person should steal food. However, a starving person stealing a loaft of bread is different than a rich person doing it. There's nothing subjective about it. The situations are objectively different.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The truth of Islam is that it's true. You have your way of thinking, I have mine.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
If a woman is forced into marriage... I have no idea. She's not supposed to be forced into marriage. If that happens, it's against Islam and I'm not sure how the situation should be dealt with. Allah knows best.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Are you out to impose your framework on me? I am simply explaining my point of view. You can accept it or not accept it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I'm around quite a bit of Muslims and haven't had any problem like you describe. As for the Shia, the Shia are a deviant sect.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I don't tell other people what they should or shouldn't do. God dictates what we should and shouldn't do.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Hopefully.
Morality is secular precisely because it is objective.
If it were religiously defined, moral character would cease to be defined on the basis of the morality of an action, instead being based upon a whim which religious belief someone belonged to. Since morality is eternal, that's to say it does not depend on belonging to one religion or another, it is of secular character.
Regardless of a person particular religious beliefs or politics, morality holds itself. It cannot morph, present or alter on account of what religion (if any) someone belongs to. One's actions cannot be moral or not simply by belonging to a religion.
A theocratic morality is no better than claiming your actions have moral virtue because you belong to a football team. Or a political group. Or because you like mints.
Philosophical according to what? According to what you define as philosophy? I don't care.
Silliness.
There is no secular basis for morality. Explain how it's possible and how you derive rulings.
In a way... yes. Morality doesn't have that sort of "basis." Secular or religious morality does not have such a basis.
We cannot "derive" morality from the mere fact someone speaks because it means there are no grounds to the argument. It doesn't matter if we are talking about ourselves, a tiger to God. The fact someone simply says something doesn't give a moral justification.
Moral justification requires a particular objective truth, not merely someone speech, but an objective truth of morality. One justifies that a particular claim about morality is true. One that even God themselves is subject to, for not even God can alter the objectivity of morality.
When I say morality is "secular", this is what I mean. Since it is objective and enteral itself, no religious tradition or belief can be the reason an action is right or wrong.
Especially not in this day and age where trends move so quickly that parents have a harder time relating to their kids (and therefore a harder time imparting religious devotion).
Quoting Ram
Why? Just because someone said so? Why did they believe it?
Quoting Ram
Sometimes good things happen. Why should I assume this life is a test? Why should I not strive to avoid the bad things and promote the good things (based on our shared values)?
Quoting Ram
So technically someone ought to starve to death before stealing?
Quoting Ram
The truth of your position cannot be that it is true. That's not only circular, it's incoherent. Why is Islam the true one?
I need a reason to be persuaded by, otherwise the Hindu or the Buddhist will just come along and persuade me in favor of their beliefs instead of yours. I need evidence.
Quoting Ram
What good is your blind faith to a book which you think gives us all the answers if you cannot actually extract answers from it?
Quoting Ram
I'm trying to do "philosophy" by comparing our worldviews to see which one is more appealing, more sensical, more rational, and more moral.
Quoting Ram
And the Shia say that the Sunni are a deviant sect. How can I tell the difference between the deviant and the true? (hint: everything is deviant or nothing is)
Quoting Ram
Yes but you tell other people what god says we should and shouldn't do. Other people say god says differently. I say you're all either dumb, deluded, or deceitful.
Quoting Ram
If you think that god wants you to execute your child, please check yourself into a mental institution so that they can make sure you're not insane and are actually hearing the commands of the one true god. I'm sure they'll understand, as will your son, and it will be a very happy event, with flowers and dancing.
What an honor indeed...
What an honor indeed...
Humans in general are not moral. Read Revolt of the Masses if you want to learn more. Not everyone believes in the goodness of the mob.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Maybe ideally. If they do it to avoid starving, I think it's permissible.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You say it's blind but there's nothing blind about it. I'm not an idiot like perhaps you assume. I simply represent a point of view which you maybe view in an arrogant way and you maybe are not used to.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
More appealing to who? I'm wondered about what is appealing to God
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Allah guides whom He wills. I recommend you read the Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran. I think you should study what it has to say before you dismiss it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
There is tons of stuff discussing why the Shia are deviant and misguided. That is a whole other discussion and I would refer you to other resources. I am not an expert on the Shia. However, to understand the matter you would need to understand Islam. Study Islam first and you'll be in a better position to understand.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The truth of Islam is that it's the true religion.
Do you want to me to type out a whole book here and then you can dismiss it in a condescending way? Allah guides whom He wills. If Allah guides you, He guides you. If He doesn't guide you, He doesn't guide you.
If you become a Hindu, it is to your loss, not to Allah's. It's not my loss either. I'm responsible for what I believe, I am not responsible for you. I've recommended that you read the Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran. If you want to learn about Islam, that is what I recommend. If you do it or not is up to you and is your responsibility.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
We don't share values. I don't care about our alleged shared values or what you think and don't expect you to follow what I think. You think what you think, I think what I think. I am fine with that and don't expect you to think like me and don't care about what others think. I go off what I think.
Why should assume this life is a test? Well... do you believe in the Quran? It seems- no. Well, if you believe in the Quran you believe this life is a test. I believe in the Quran. If you don't, you don't.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You said what would I do if God told me to sacrifice my child. I never said anything about God telling me to do something like that and I don't hear God telling me to do things. I go off the Quran and the Sunnah. If God suddenly appeared to me and I believed it was God.... I guess so. But I seriously doubt that would happen and I've known a lot of Muslims and Christians and I've never encountered a case where that occurred.
The million-dollar question goes unanswered. How do we derive morality from a secular point of view?
My point is the question is a category error because no-one can derive morality in that way, be they secular or religious.
Attempting such an derivation involves telling the falsehood that morality isn't defined by the objective truth of morality. It tries to replace the objective truth of morality with some other sort of truth which supposedly defines morality.
In making such a move, there can be no knowledge or understanding of morality because moral truth is denied. It's replaced by whatever the "basis of morality" is supposed to be. If we attempt to derive morality in this way, we are really moral nihilists. We are rejecting objective moral truth in favour of the "basis" which supposedly tells us what is moral.
Maybe? You think?
Where are you're lofty "objective" standards at?
Quoting Ram
Different religions tell different stories about what god(s) want. How do you know the set of stories you were born into or adopted are the right set of stories?
Quoting Ram
Should I study ancient Greek texts before I dismiss Zeus as god? Telling me to read this or that isn;t going to persuade me. I'm not interested in what you've read, I'm interested in what you know and can demonstrate to be true.
Quoting Ram
Shia experts have similar stories about how Sunni's are the misguided ones. Stop fooling yourself. What is the evidence that shows Sunni Islam to be true and Shia Islam to be false? If I take your word for it, or the word of Sunni scholars, why shouldn't I take the word of Shia's and Shia scholars?
Quoting Ram
Again with the self referential incoherence...
What about Islam is true? All of it? The parts you believe are true? The parts the most intelligent Sunni scholar believes?
Quoting Ram
You're here proclaiming Islam to be the true religion and you're unable to even properly defend it. Isn't that a sin? When you are summoned to defend your beliefs from sincere challenge, you need to do so right?
Quoting Ram
So you're not interested in what anyone else thinks, and believe that you and your beliefs are the best thing since sliced bread... Not untypical levels of arrogance...
Quoting Ram
Why should I believe in the Qur'an?
Quoting Ram
It's one of the archetypal stories found in the Abrahamic religions (Islam included). God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son, and he was ready to do it. It was a test of devotion, and it's scary that people are ready to believe they communicate with god to a degree that they (you) would actually kill other human beings, including their own son, if they believe god told them to do so.
It is an understatement to say that Islam is far superior to mere sliced bread.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, I'm well aware that God tested Abraham (PBUH) in that way. But I've never personally encountered any cases where a Muslim or a Christian said God told them to do that. I think it's more likely for a kid to get eaten by a shark or hit by lightning than for that to actually happen. Atheists use that as an argument but it almost never actually happens. I go off the Quran and the Sunnah, I don't hear God talking to me.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Allah guides whom He wills. No, God does not require me to prove Islam is the true religion or to convince you. Allah guides whom He wills. I'm not responsible for what you believe.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
All of Islam is true.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Because it is the word of Allah.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It isn't about persuading you. I've done my part by pointing in the right direction. What you do is up to you. Allah guides whom He wills. I've said this enough times that insha'Allah you might understand it.
Should you study Greek texts before dismissing Zeus?? Zeus is fictitious. Allah is not fictitious.
Believe me or don't. You're going to meet Him.Quoting VagabondSpectre
Allah knows best. Right and wrong are independent of what I think.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That is a long story and I'm not interested in telling you my biography. Believe or don't.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
"Shia experts"- no such thing. The Shia are wrong.
If you want to learn more about the Shia stuff, you would need to learn about Islam first. Then we could go into that. That is a whole other subject and you would need to go into other resources. You don't get all your knowledge off forum posts.
The point is that you think you have god-given truth, and you're willing to kill others and yourself if you think that's what your god-truth mandates. That's scary.
Quoting Ram
Which version of Islam?
Quoting Ram
How do you know it is the word of Allah?
Quoting Ram
If anything you've given me the impression that you've bought into Islam without the slightest care to question the validity of the beliefs it entails. You would rather dogmatically follow your existing beliefs than honestly test them.
Quoting Ram
How do you know, though? It kind of seems like if you can just dismiss Zeus as fictitious, I can just dismiss God/Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah as also fictitious.
Doesn't it seem fictitious? Have you ever seen an angel? A miracle? What if the prophets just made things up? what if people just embellished things after their deaths?
Quoting Ram
So you're motivated by fear I see (else, why would you try to warn me so...).
What if I am god, and this conversation is your actual test. What if god wants people to form their own beliefs instead of just believing the bull-shit of others to such a degree that they're ready to kill and die over subsequent disagreement?
Quoting Ram
I didn't ask for your story, I asked why you think your stories are true.
Quoting Ram
Shiites say the same thing about Sunnis. Seems like you're both wrong.
Quoting Ram
You don't actually know how familiar or unfamiliar I am with Islam and I'm not interested in exploring the Qur'an or and hadith with someone who refuses to honestly face my questions from the get go.
Welcome to philosophy. It's about questioning your potentially bad ideas. Live long and prosper...
What is cogent in existentialism is the choice of the individual.
You choose to follow Islam. That's fine, go right ahead. You can follow the precepts and not have to think about moral issues again.
Others will not choose Islam, but instead to make moral judgements for themselves.
Point being, it's down to the individual to make the choice.
But some choose to hide their moral choices behind religious pretence.
Common decency, for a start. Including not inflicting ones own views on others. You know, not stoning an adulteress, not asking someone to sacrifice their son, allowing homosexuals to live, that sort of thing.
Compared with which, a mutually agreed, pleasurable fuck amongst family is small cheese.
Existentialism has all kinds of ideas about right and wrong, Sartre is not existentialism. You are already in Bad Faith, in terms of Sartre, but that is another discussion.
The idea that something is wrong and you are against nature or deviant or vile or sick or sinful or selfish, etc etc, because you do a particular thing that is not measurably negatively affecting anyone (which is what religion is stocked full of) is a disgrace to the human intellect.
One CAN indeed base morality upon something atheistic. How about love? How about happiness like John Mill?
But trying to base morality in something other than the morality of a particular thing, which is always based on intuition and feeling, is completely severing that moral component of the psyche from its typical spot. Moralists want an objective truth of morality, something like a constant reference point by which man could become God and judge, for that is the root of the psyche in terms of God... To be God... Or try to be. That is the ideal. Nothing like this will ever be. What about Robin Hood? The train track dilemma? You have philosophical , moral dilemmas precisely because there is no absolute reference point of a moral claim: there is only the intuition and faith of a particular right or wrong. In the end, people base themselves not upon what is supposed but what is believed to be known, known as if it were known... And these things known do not come from a book or another persons words but from within the inner workings of their own mind, their associations and their feelings regarding what life is and what their own existence entails.
And if someone bases their life otherwise... It is conditioning... And conditioning is extremely powerful. Its name is obfuscation of association.
I am homosexual. I am in a relationshil with a male.
In your eyes you say I am immoral.
In truth, you do not know me. You have an idea of something I may be of or represented to be, but in the end this is abstraction, and the firm base of that which is (me and my relationship) are the actual emotions, feelings and intentions that define. You wish to define and compartmentalize or categorize me and what I supposedly am, but, in reality, what you have labeled me to be as immoral is an impoverished representation the creation of which has absolutely no base in reality at all. You say I am immoral for being a homosexual. I say you are delusional, because you have not even addressed me in the first place.
This is Islam at its worst. Submission; even unto that which is morally abhorrent.
I have a question based on sexual ethics:
What is wrong with consenting adults who understand the emotional and mental ramifications of their actions as well as the perception of the community and the effect thereof, when they interact in:
a) Incest
b) Fornication
c) Adultery (I don't mean cheating on spouse, more along the lines of swinging and orgies and all the married parties are present or aware and are ok with it)?
(You may be inclined to give an answer based on your religious edicts of morality, but, remember to show how it is objective.)
Then what is LAW (or the constitution)?
Also, how about reason?
There are normative criteria to define what constitutes doing philosophy. They are pretty broad and yet what you are doing seems to fall outside their province.
No it doesn't. Morality doesn't have to be objective, it never has been objective, the basis for non-objective morality is agreement. You will be excluded from the group, or worse, like put into jail if it's against the law also.
Yours is susceptible to The Torquemada problem, which is not a good thing. :sad:
Such a basis is survival. We're a social species, very few of us could survive on our own. A secular basis for morality is any set of rules which enhance social cohesion.
The moral life is entirely secular.
M
"Would you happen to be related to the Marquis de Sade?"
Yours is an interesting post, for the brevity of the reply contains a potential profundity, regardless of whether or not it is tongue in cheek.
The Marquis de Sade, was a sensualist pleasure seeker who was cruel and evil. I am indeed a selfish sensualist, but am neither cruel no evil (at least not to the extent) of the Marquis.
The comparison suggests that pleasure and sensuality, contain an immorality. They do not. They are vague terms that are subjectively defined or given meaning by the intellect. If and when they are poorly defined, this is a reflection of a poorly used intellect.
Given the intellectual distance between your proffered comparison between my reply, and the Marquis, you have displayed a greater affinity with the Marquis, in the distance you maintain, from an intellectual comprehension of the true meaning of my words.
If you make the comparison, despite an understanding of my words then you are engaging not only in the ignorance of the Marquis but are participating in His particular brand of immorality.
Now I do accept that the comparison may well be tongue in cheek, and I am in no way perturbed by the comparison, however I do think it illustrates how ostensible morality, very often has an entirely contrary basis.
M
M
Me: Correct. So?
This is such a wonderful situation.
Quoting tim wood
No thanks, in my estimation a lot of problems have arisen when too much care is applied to the reading of Genesis and the other fictions therein.
M
William Blake
Is this a rather prosaic way of re-stating the old adage that: 'ignorance is bliss!"
M
Agree entirely.
There is no better place than the Bible to quarry for the 'sweet delight' of 'the one who is'.
M
It does give one.. 'the one who is'
and surely that must be a consummate delight, one that Old Philosophy tends to remove rather than sustain.
M
The lust of the goat is the bounty of God.
The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God.
The nakedness of woman is the work of God.
William Blake
I agree, but I also believe we have an innate capacity for morality - one that seems rooted in empathy - and such a capacity is consistent with natural selection.
Quoting Ram
Quoting Ram
Quoting Ram
You've contradicted yourself.
There is no contradiction.
Normative according to whose norms? You mean according to the norms of the Enlightenment. I don't care about the "Enlightenment".
Of course there is. If morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective, then that subjectivity is the basis for secular morality. That's the basis for determining what is and isn't immoral. The contradiction arises from you saying, on the one hand, that there is [i]no[/I] basis, but then, on the other hand, suggesting that there [I]is[/I] a basis.
Moral relativists have a basis for morality, so you can't lack a basis for morality [I]and[/I] be a moral relativist.
You're either not saying what you really mean or you can't do basic logic. And you've given me reason to doubt that you know much about what you're actually talking about.
Subjective morality would mean morality is not real- it would be "morality" without basis.
If you want to argue that baselessness is a basis and get into an argument about semantics, you can do that.
"Moral relativists have a basis for morality" is absurd. The perceived contradiction you claim is a semantic dispute, resting upon your assertion that baselessness is a base. If you believe baselessness is a base, you can believe that. I believe otherwise.
"Moral relativists have a basis for morality"- that is one of the craziest things I have read in a while."Moral relativists have a basis for morality". Wow. That's a paradox and contrary to common sense. That is quite the logical gymnastics. I'm amazed at how people can be smug without justification.
Almost everything you just said is completely wrong.
Subjective morality wouldn't mean that morality isn't real, it would just mean that it's subjective. If you are going by the hidden premise that only objective morality is real, then that would follow, but you should be explicit about that, especially as others might not agree with that premise.
I am not arguing that baselessness is a basis. On the contrary, you are inadvertently arguing that a basis is no basis.
The clue is in the name. The basis for subjective morality is... drum roll... subjectivity!
You have made no attempt whatsoever to explain why subjectivity would not be the basis for subjective morality, so your dismissals aren't worth jack. Subjectivity as the basis for determining what is right or wrong is what defines subjective morality and sets it apart from objective morality.
And it's a similar thing with moral relativism. Again, the clue is in the name. It's hard to miss. The basis for moral relativism is that what is right or wrong is relative to this or that culture, or this or that subject, or this or that group.
How much do you actually know about these positions? Because what I have said is far from absurd. It's not even controversial. It shows that I at least have a basic understanding of these positions - something which you apparently lack.
The classification is more nuanced than you perhaps realise. For example, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:
But one thing's for sure, there certainly [I]is[/I] a basis, even if you refuse to acknowledge it as such, perhaps because it doesn't suit your agenda, which appears to be to discredit these positions by any means.
Okay, if you want to argue about semantics, you can argue about semantics.
Quoting S
Lots of snark, no substance. How often atheists are condescending without actually having any sort of justification for their condescension. They rely on that gimmick because they lack actual substance and need a smokescreen.
Quoting S
So I'm out to discredit a position by any means necessary? And... pointing out the blatantly obvious- that moral relativism is not a basis for morality is by any means necessary??????
I mean if you want to deny the blatantly obvious and play a game about semantics, you can do that. If you want to consider moral relativism as a "basis" for morality... if your view of the word "basis" means that one can say "do whatever you want, there is no right or wrong" is a "basis" for morality.... it is what it is.... you're arguing about semantics rather than content. Your argument has no actual substance and you're not addressing any real issue, just harping on semantics like that's a substitute for real content. You are engaging in distraction from real substance rather than engaging in actual substance.
So far your arguments have been 'bad shit crazy'. You are implying that it's ok for your arguments to be bad when others' arguments are also bad, hence, through some ***magical*** ###alchemical### transformation, that makes it logical???!!!
If there was no secular basis for morality then the science of ethics would be flawed. All laws (constitutions) would be fundamentally and explicitly dependent on religious edicts. The FACT that it is not the case PROVES your statement wrong. Your statement is proved wrong by the practical reality of our lives.
What's a basis? Is it the same thing as saying that morality is objective? So that your second statement is a restatement of the first?
And why would a secular position entail necessary subjectivity? Why not simply say that a secular morality is subjective? What's the difference?
I don't think that atheists are quite as homogeneous as you believe. As if you could just read Sartre and then know what all consistent atheists should believe.
Well, there's no point in arguing about semantics by myself. If the issue is semantic, then we could argue about it, or not. It does seem to be semantic, and it does seem to stem from the meaning of "real" in the context of morality. The first step towards some sort of a resolution, it seems to me, would be to clarify your meaning, which you haven't done in your reply, despite the opportunity I gave you. Under the assumption that you only consider objective morality to be real, then I'll just be clear that that's not a premise that I accept, at least without first being convinced of it.
Quoting Ram
Speaking of a lack of substance, which part of the above quote addresses my point that subjectivity is the basis for subjective morality?
Quoting Ram
You're surprised at that accusation? Have you seen those videos in your opening post? Talk about dirty tactics! Trying to make atheists appear guilty by association with incest? Real dignified. :clap:
That's no better than making Muslims appear guilty by association with terrorists.
Quoting Ram
Just because it might seem blatantly obvious to you, that doesn't mean that it is so. After all, you are a fervent Muslim, are you not? And I'm a nonreligious atheist. We have a very different set of beliefs. I'm not convinced by the kind of ludicrous claims that you're expected to swallow up as a follower of such a religion.
Quoting Ram
Again, you're only demonstrating your lack of understanding about what moral relativism entails. It does not entail, "Do whatever you want! There's no right or wrong!". But if you want to waste your time attacking a straw man, be my guest.
You should first understand what you're talking about before you attempt a criticism of it.
Actually, that's exactly what it entails.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Ah- now your logical gymnastics make sense. So apparently, it seems you are more interested in "winning" than in a dispassionate and objective search for truth. Such a person is pointless to talk to. I have no intention of responding to you any further.
Quoting Moliere
What is a basis?
noun, plural ba·ses [bey-seez] /?be??siz/.
1. the bottom or base of anything; the part on which something stands or rests.
2. anything upon which something is based; fundamental principle; groundwork.
I guess you can say moral relativism is a basis for "morality". It's not a basis for morality, though.
Morality is objective. Morality has to do with right and wrong. You cannot deny that there is right and wrong and have a basis for morality. There is no secular basis for morality. A person can degrade the definition of "basis" or degrade the definition of "morality" in a display of logical gymnastics if they like it is what it is.
Like I said- atheists don't want to deal with this directly. They want to dance around the issue and get into logical gymnastics. At the end of the day, they understand, though- even if they might not say it- if there is no God then everything is permissible. This is simply a fact.
People are taking a dishonest approach and denying what is blatantly obvious to any objective, unbiased analysis. Even Sartre understood. If you read Sartre- Sartre explained that he was merely out to follow atheism to its logical conclusions. So not all atheists might be Sartre readers- but atheism logically leads to moral relativism. And a person can try to dress moral relativism up all they want but the bottom line is that it means that people can do whatever they want.
This is from the diary of Eric Harris, one of the Columbine shooters: "I think, so the f*** what, you think thats a bad thing? just because your mommy and daddy told you blood and violence is bad, you think its a f***ing law of nature? wrong, only science and math are true, everything, and I mean everyfuckingthing else is man made."
All he did was follow moral relativism to its logical conclusion. If you really accept moral relativism, you can't say he was wrong. If you think or say he was wrong then you are denying that morality is relative and implying that morality is objective.
If someone thinks moral relativism is a basis for morality
they can say "you're an irrational Muslim!" all they want
but regardless of whether I'm Muslim, atheist, Hindu, whatever-
they are kidding themselves.
I don't think Nietzsche, Sartre or Foucalt were "fervent Muslims".
The only honest approach is for atheists to go the Postmodern route. Atheism logically leads to Postmodernism and moral relativism. That is the only honest approach from those premises.
People can try to go a different route and people can insult me and try to distract from what is blatantly obvious not only to Muslims but to any unbiased observer- but I have specified the only honest route.
Of course I am a Muslim but I am not engaging in any tortured logical gymnastics here. I am merely adding 1 + 1. It's the fervent atheists here who are engaging in tortured logical gynmnastics for the sake of their predetermined conclusions- really for the sake of PR. They can't just come out into the open about where their beliefs logically lead.
Unless atheists are up-front and honest and willing to follow premises to their logical conclusions rather than merely try to insult me, I don't think a real conversation can happen.
Does atheism necesitate people engaging in logical gymnastics and pretending denying the objective existence of morality is a basis for morality? At least Nietzsche had the spine to follow his premises to the logical conclusions. Hopefully an honest atheist appears and a real conversation can follow.
I'm guessing that you're not referencing the first definition, because that's just silly.
But if it's the latter then it seems to me that all we need is a single example of a moral theory that is objective, and secular, to counter what you're saying.
By objective you seem to mean...Quoting Ram
So we must have some fundamental principle of morality that is both secular, and believes there is a right and a wrong -- we might say something akin to the way we know that 1 and 1 make 2, regardless of our belief, we can also know that there are moral propositions which are true regardless of what we believe about them. If we had a theory that fit both of those requirements then it would seem that we could conclude that it is at least not necessarily the case that secular beliefs imply subjective morality.
Yes or no?
I am not degrading you or asking my questions rhetorically. I'm laying a groundwork for meaningful disagreement. I surely disagree with your assertion, but that's neither here nor there. Disagreement isn't interesting unto itself -- else you just end up re-asserting what you already believe in increasingly strong tones.
What's interesting is how and why we disagree -- hence why I'm asking questions about what are seemingly simple words. But usually they are not so simple or innocuous as they might seem at first blush.
Quoting Ram
That's not an argument. But, anyway, let's skip ahead to why you're wrong, shall we?
Moral relativism entails that morals are relative. That doesn't mean that there are no morals. It means that, relative to so-and-so, it's right to do this, and it's wrong to do that. Therefore, moral relativism does not entail that there is no right or wrong, only that what is right or wrong is relative. (The clue is in the name).
Just semantics, again? Hardly. More like using terms correctly and not in a misleading way which suits your agenda.
I suspect that your confusion arises as a result of interpreting right or wrong in a blinkered way, so that whenever you look for right or wrong, you look only for objective right or wrong, and when you don't find objective right or wrong in a place where it shouldn't even be for obvious reasons, you rashly conclude that there is no right or wrong there.
Also, because moral relativism entails that morals are relative, it doesn't follow that moral relativism entails that you can do whatever you want. On the contrary, if that were the case, then it wouldn't be relativism, but a kind of absolutism. There would be absolutely no morals to adhere to at all, instead of there being a variety of morals associated with various cultures, individuals, and groups. That's a gross misunderstanding. In reality, for example, relative to the culture of the United Kingdom, as in other places, it is not considered acceptable to do whatever you want. It is not considered acceptable to rob an old lady, bomb a school, or a rape a baby. Very much the contrary to, "anything is permissible".
Quoting Ram
You can't derive that from what you quoted of me. That is just speculation, and speculation which you're now using as a pretext to avoid having to back up your unsupported claims. But I understand why you'd do that, given that your position is untenable.
Fortunately, I don't depend on you continuing to reply to me in order for me to refute what you've already said.
I'm fine with discussing with you and I enjoy it. You're free to your own beliefs and I'm fine with disagreement as long as it's respectful. I try to be respectful as well. It's about ideas, not people.
Now as far as definition- yes I was going more with the second definition which was presented.
Now as far as what I've quoted from you... "we must have some fundamental principle of morality that is both secular and believes there is a right and a wrong".
I don't agree with that. Now I do respect that there are atheists who try to preserve morality.
However, such atheists are on an insecure foundation. Morality has to have a solid foundation.
I think atheism necessarily implies moral relativism. I am a Muslim but I am also a theist (specifically a monotheist).
According to Islam, sovereignty belongs to God. Allah is Al-Malik- sovereignty belongs to Allah. I think this flows logically from monotheism.
I think the essence of morality is submission to Allah. Allah commands what is just, what is good.
I think your post implies that the Euthyphro dilemma has already been answered and that there is some Good which is independent of Allah. Is that which is just, just because Allah commands it? Or Allah commands it because it is just?
I think what is just is what Allah commands. I don't think "just" or "good" should be conceived as independent of or prior to God. I don't like that at all.
I don't believe there is some Good independent of Allah. Submission to Allah is I believe the basis of morality.
I will give an example. The sun comes out in the morning and lights the earth. Imagine if the sun was to rebel against God! What if the sun told God "I don't want to get up" and refused to rise and light the earth. It would be chaos!
What if the rain said "I don't want to come down to earth and bring water upon earth. I am going to stay here in this cozy cloud"? It would be chaos.
Because Allah is All-Knowing and All-Wise and because Allah is Just and Good and because Allah is Allah... we must submit to Allah. The sun submits to Allah by rising in the morning. Our shadows prostrate to Allah. I think the rain submits to Allah by coming on to the earth and watering the earth- so plants can grow, for example. I think the essence of good is submitting to Allah and the essence of evil is being like Iblees and refusing to submit to Allah and rebelling against Allah.
Thus, by rising and setting at its appointed time I think the sun submits to Allah and I think pretty much everything submits to Allah. Imagine if the earth or the sun moved a little in one direction or the other. If they moved a little further apart, earth would become frozen. If they moved a little closer, we would melt. Therefore there is a natural order and we need to play our role by submitting to our Creator.
This is why, for example, it is wrong for people to engage in unlawful sexual intercourse. It goes against our Creator. Allah gave us free will but Allah wants us to wait until marriage. However, we have free will. This makes us different than the angels- who serve Allah but who don't have free will.
So therefore the premise that there is some independent Good existing independent of Allah I do not believe. Allah knows best. Allah is our Creator. We should obey Allah. Just as the sun rises in the morning, the earth keeps a certain distance from a sun, we have to play our role. This is good. When we disobey Allah and when we go against what is the natural, innate law is when things go bad.
So obviously, I am thinking from different premises than you- or at least maybe so. I already am a believer in the premise that there is a God. Maybe you are thinking from another premise.
However, I do not agree that morality is secular. I don't believe reality is secular. I don't think from a secular perspective nor do I think from the perspective of the so-called "Enlightenment" which I oppose.
I think you are presupposing that the Euthyphro dilemma has already been answered and that it has been answered in a certain direction. However, I think we have different responses to the Euthyphro dilemma and I don't think our premises lead in the same direction. If my premise is theism and your premise is atheism, these premises lead in very different directions.
There is no secular basis for morality. There is no secular basis even for presupposing the validity of morality itself. From a secular perspective, there is no basis for accepting morality as an end at all.
Atheism leads to moral relativism. Now from a moral relativist perspective, a person is free to do as they like and they can construct an elaborate system of morality if they like- but this whole elaborate system of morality is merely an extension of them doing what they like.
Furthermore, an arbitrary morality which is meant as a replacement for the morality of Christianity or Islam has an extremely weak basis. Morality is tested when times are hard. It is therefore necessary that morality has a firm basis which can withstand tests. A morality with a weak basis will be blown away when the wind blows.
I think I misinterpreted your first sentence but I leave this for now. I thought you were saying there is a secular morality. I think I understand now. Okay.
Now if we accept that atheism necesarily leads to moral relativism and we from that position construct an elaborate system of morality so as to fill a gap which is left empty without religion- obviously, we haven't disproven my thesis that atheism necessarily leads to moral relativism. I think you would need to both come up with some system of morality which is secular and which is not relative. However, I do not believe this is possible. I do not believe that you can demonstrate the validity of a secular system of morality- or even secular morality at all- in the same way as you can demonstrate a math problem. From a secular perspective, there is no reason why one should even accept morality as an end at all. There would be no reason not to follow Nietzsche in simply dispensing with morality. If you can demonstrate an objective, secular morality which disproves moral relativism that you can demonstrate like math or science- I would like to see it.
You still haven't answer my suggestion that convention or agreement in a given group is the basis for a non-objective morality. It isn't necessary that everybody literally agrees with it, it's enough that most do, tacit or explict, or that this happens via representation...
To take your example, it doesn't matter that the Columbine Shooters personally believed that what they did was not immoral. They would be put into jail anyway, not because God ordained it, but because (the large majority of) people collectively agree on the rule that murder is wrong.
Well, it really depends on what you want from a demonstration I think. I believe I have a hint at what you're wanting from a moral system when you say . . .
Quoting Ram
There are clearly atheists who believe they have such a basis. Moral realism is a position which at least a plurality of atheists hold. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I've come across it enough to see that there are those who believe as much. In fact I'd say that as long as there exists a person who believes two things to be true they'd count -- as long as there exists a person who believes God does not exist, and believes that at least one statement is both a moral statement and true, then I'd be inclined to say that it's at least possible to hold both beliefs.
But you want a demonstration, and not just an example. And you're interested in not just consistency, but whether or not the foundational principle of morality is strong, rather than weak.
Am I right so far?
If so -- it'd be helpful to hash out what counts as a demonstration, what makes a moral foundational principle strong rather than weak, and how what you currently believe actually fits those criteria in a way that does not assume its conclusion.
Because if submitting to Allah is good because submitting to Allah is good then clearly no atheist will be able to meet that criteria, but it will also just sort of assume the belief from the outset in a way that rational disagreement or discussion couldn't take place.
That's interesting that you bring that up. The Quran actually addresses that in Surah Al Kahf. It's also a theme which runs throughout the Quran.
In Surah Al Kahf, this rich, impious man mocks a pious man who has less. The rich man has more in terms of wealth, children and followers among the people. However, in the end God rewards the pious man and punishes the rich man. It's an interesting story. I hope you read it sometime.
At the time the Quran was revealed, it was a common practice that people would bury their infant daughters. The Quran forbade this. If the majority thinks it's okay to bury your infant daughter, is it wrong to tell people not to bury their infant daughters?
Okay. Hmm. Glad to be talking to someone interesting.
I don't deny that there are atheists who believe in objective morality- in moral realism. I deny that they are being consistent, though. I think they are sentimental people who are willing to accept atheism but unwilling to accept what it entails.
Well I mean Christianity tells it somewhat differently but Islam and Christianity both talk about how Iblees (Satan) rebelled against God.
I mean so humans can follow the path of Iblees and join in his rebellion- or submit to God. Imagine if the sun or the earth behaved like Iblees and rebelled against God. If the sun or the earth moved slightly in the wrong direction, chaos would ensue.
We have to live in harmony with the natural law.
Now as far as what makes for a good foundation- if we accept a set of rules come from God- that's a good foundation. If the rules were made up by... some dude... I am also some dude... if he just made stuff up, I can make stuff up too. I mean so for me Islam is a good foundation because it comes from God. I think that is a good foundation. I don't know of any other foundation for morality. What other foundation for morality can there be? I'm aware that there are atheists who are... sometimes even rather dogmatic... believers in objective morality (SJW extremists who try to terrorize anyone who thinks differently are a sort of extreme example).... however, I think they are inconsistent and that whatever morality they try to pretend is objective is something someone made up. Either we accept that morals come from God or we have to accept that morality itself is something made up, I think.
From an atheistic perspective, I wouldn't say it's wrong to tell people not to bury their infant daughters, it would just not be a moral rule if the majority disagreed... and people would ignore it.
Of course some people will have more (moral) influence (and power) then others, and may change peoples minds on that issue. Like Jesus or Mohammed did, from a atheist perspective that is.
And to answer more generally, as to the basis of non-objective morality, you just have think of sports, any sport will do. People invent the rules, yet everybody playing the sport follows them. That's because a system of enforcement and arbitration is put into place. People follow the rules ultimately because they will be punished/penalized otherwise.
The same basicly holds for secular morality.
Your body gathers raw input through its senses which your subconscious translates into concepts using the knowledge and experience you have available. You are only aware of the end product, the subconciously translated concepts, not the raw input.
When you discuss Islam, you discuss your own personal understanding of it which is derived from fundamental aspects such as your society and family culture, your language and all sorts of experiences you've had. That knowledge is from where? Your teachers taught you based on their understanding which was taught to them by others and so on. The very religous texts your belief is based on was written in a culture which no longer exists in that exact form and is translated by other humans using their own understanding to decide the correct wording.
If you follow this to its inevitable conclusion, you end up in a place where each individual lives according to their current understanding of the universe and everything in it. No two individuals understanding of a religion or its moral code is going to be exactly the same. And that understanding is subject to change every second you experience life unless you go to great lengths to isolate yourself from anything new or different.
Hence why religions in general always include some form of isolation policy.
So logical necessity isn't at play. So far all that I can see from you is that as long as something comes from God, then it is good.
But why should I believe that? Why should you? What supports this belief?
So far it just seems like you're asserting it over and over again. So it would seem nothing supports this belief. It's just something you happen to believe. Which, from an outside perspective like my own, who does not accept this belief just because you said it, appears to be much like the belief of some dude making stuff up.
After all, it may be good to accept what God says. But surely it is possible that some dude just made that up. At the very least, if Allah is the one and true God, then there are religions that exist which amount to much the same thing -- since they do not submit to Allah, they submit to another God, clearly they are just following what some dude made up one time, rather than submitting to Allah.
What gives your belief more credence than what someone else is making up? Why should anyone accept it at all?
Atheists are human and according to your beliefs humans have an innate moral base. Problem solved. :smile:
If all you have is assertion P -- that whatever Allah says is good -- then that's not much different from assertion Q -- that there are some true moral statements. Where you say "What if the sun and the moon were to not follow the will of Allah", another person could say "What if the sun and the moon were not to follow the laws of nature?"
The answer being -- all would be chaos.
So we can say that both positions meet this bare minimum threshold for being accepted as believed -- all you have to do is tell a story about your beliefs that ensures that everything would not fall into chaos, and repeat the foundational principle over and over again.
But, in fact, almost any position would meet this bare minimum threshold -- in which case it's not really all that different from saying that everyone can do whatever they want.
Is there anything in your belief that we should submit to Allah that makes it something more than what Ram wants? If you say Allah, then I'd submit that this isn't very convincing, at least -- not anymore convincing than the atheist who says he can be good without God in some sort of objective way without saying much more than that other than repeating himself. In which case, from my perspective at least, you're applying different standards to different claims and asking more from the atheist than what you ask from yourself.
Moral realism, innate morality etc... is no real justification for morality. All i have to say to you is, like he's been saying all along, I feel/think differently, and we are back at moral relativism. Why should I put my moral beliefs aside for yours?
There is no objective morality without god, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
If you believe in God there can be... it brings a teleological element into the picture.
You could, say, observe that the universe is naturally ordered, and so there is a fair inference to say that the universe has a kind of telos to which it is going -- naturally. There's nothing inconsistent in this. You could follow Aristotle, in some way, and say that the human being has a natural telos which it should fulfill, and that this way of living is what ethics consists in, and is also independent of what an individual happens to believe. A person may happen to believe that drinking every day is good for them, but their telos wouldn't change because of that.
Yeah but such a teleological element doesn't inform us about the details like say the word of God does.
I also believe that we are not blank slates, and that there is some telos to human beings, but it's not detailed enough for an applicable moral code. We do have innate moral feeling etc... but we can take those in different directions when it comes to the details, it seems to me.
You do make a good point... still the word of god is a little bit more detailed, even if not enough, then innate moral feelings.
That's probably true, but they all can believe their particular version comes from God, making is justified objectively in their view.
I think if you apply the same standards to either belief you'll largely end up with the same outcome -- if one standard yields an objective morality for theism, it will probably do the same for atheism.
Maybe, though it would seem a bit of a strange atheist to me... rejecting revelation and being sceptic on the one hand, and having a sort of faith on the other.
And how does he deal with the naturalistic fallacy... even if we are evolved to behave a certain way, does that necessarily mean we should? I mean should we start living in tribes again for instance?
Every decision to accept builds on the original belief, possibly strengthening and subtly changing it
I'd say that the naturalistic fallacy is just as damaging to the theists case as it is to the atheists case -- or, at least, the open-question argument from which said fallacy derives. So before we were appealing to teleology to make a case for objective morality, right? But does it not make sense to ask "Is this end-goal good?"
And if it does make sense, then goodness must be something other than teleology, whether said teleology is rooted in evolutionary biology and psychology or whether that teleology is rooted in God.
On the other hand, Casebeer has an interesting take on the naturalistic fallacy and the open-question argument. I don't agree with it, but it is a kind of scientific response to your question that's worth reading.
Good argument Moliere, I can't think of a clear reason why it wouldn't apply to theists also.
I'll check out the reference.
What confuses me is the amount of assumption present in anyone who not only accepts natural evolution as fact but assumes it is also correctly and wholly understood. If one questions this premise, the entire structure fails flat. Is it not just as big an assumption then if God or gods exist?
Don't you come from a Western background? And more specifically, I think you come from European ancestry. I am not sure but I bet I'm right.
When you discuss any topic (including Islam), you discuss your own personal understanding of it which is derived from fundamental aspects such as your society and family culture, your language and all sorts of experiences you've had. That knowledge is from where? Your teachers taught you based on their understanding which was taught to them by others and so on.
You look at me as influenced by culture and I look at you the same way. Maybe you think I'm the product of a particular culture. That means nothing to me. I think you're the product of a particular culture. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the only language you speak. Furthermore, you have no idea what my background is.
Very, very weak. This is weaker than a twig. It is based on lacking comprehension of my perspective rather than any valid refutation. It's a mere strawman. Plus it leaves out tons and tons (such as temptation). "Ignorant and proud" seems to be the mentality displayed.
Humans are born pure and become corrupt.
Can you present a persuasive argument against the thought that theism or religious beliefs in general are not a corruption of this innate moral base that you propose?
Persuasive to who? Persuasive to you?
Can you present an argument persuasive to me that there is no God?
Wait. Wasn't it you who posted that video of people expressing sympathy with people who partake in incest in a topic that's supposed to be about atheist morality?
Yes, persuasive to me.
Quoting Ram
I don't know, in any case this is a different issue and I have no interest in persuading you of that.
I try to be respectful towards people. I'm not about insulting people personally.
I don't know, in any case this is a different issue and I have no interest in persuading you of that.
Then persuade me of your position on the issue.
That's insulting to a lot of people. I think that maybe if you had a taste of your own medicine, you might realise why it's insulting.
Ah more rationalization on your part for why you think you're entitled to insult believers. From your perspective you're entitled to do what you want so insulting people for believing differently doesn't surprise me and only confirms what I've been saying this whole time.
Would you find it insulting if I suggested that theist morality supports terrorism? I could show you this video, but I think you get the point.
No, I wouldn't find it personally insulting. There's a difference between addressing ideas and addressing individual people.
Okay, so you wouldn't find it personally insulting. Just kind of dumb?
I wouldn't even necessarily find it dumb. If you want to talk about it, insha'Allah we can talk about it. You're free to criticize ideas. I just don't think it's cool to insult people as individuals. For a debate to take place, of course people need to be able to criticize positions- but attacking individuals is unnecessary and bad for debate.
I'll start simple.
Killing other human beings is wrong according to your belief in an innate moral sense. Adherents of theistic religions kill other human beings, in mass in some circumstances. The very notion of Jihad (holly war) is an exemplar of corruption, according to your belief in an innate moral sense and its potential for corruption.
The first sentence is wrong. I read an account of how an African-American in the 19th century killed a KKK member in order to defend his family against KKK terrorism when the KKK attempted to invade his home at night. I don't think he was wrong at all and I think his action was heroic. So the first sentence is wrong. I hope the rest of your paragraph isn't dependent on the incorrect first sentence.
Okay. I see the second sentence depends on the first sentence. This is not good. The first sentence is wrong and so the second sentence depends on a false premise. This is not good.
I see. The third sentence is the same. Also, I don't think it understands the term "jihad". Furthermore, ISIS (and the killing of innocents) is against Islam and that's a whole other topic and a very long discussion. However, insha'Allah we can discuss it if you'd like to know more about it.
Because otherwise chaos would ensue! The sun would melt stuff and some such. Of course, there's no way to actually know that, like much of what he has said. It just comes from an old storybook and is taken up on faith. We can know that there'd be chaos and that things would melt if the sun were to move close enough to the Earth - we can know that through science - but not that this apparent order is maintained by Allah. It might be comforting to believe that order is maintained by Allah, but I don't think that I could believe that if I tried. I'm just not that gullible.
So either killing other human beings is not against an innate moral sense or it's not immoral under particular circumstances. Can you at least outline the circumstances where it's not immoral to kill other human beings?
In self-defense, for example.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
ChatteringMonkey is an atheist too. He himself took down your premise. I think it's interesting how you took your false premise and ran with it: Quoting Moliere
I pointed out something obvious and it was a problem because I'm a Muslim who said it. However, atheists don't go after consistent atheists like ChatteringMonkey, Nietzsche, Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, pretty much every existentialist (except Kierkegaard) and postmodernist philosopher ever when they make the same point. You even used the term "begging the question" which is a term which supposedly has to do with logic (I actually have to look the term up as I forget what that means). All that on the basis of a false premise!
Now I already said:
Quoting Ram
you used the phrase:
Quoting Moliere
so I got the impression you are or were trying to find some sort of common ground. How much common ground is there exactly? The both of us have to accept that the other is reasoning from a completely different set of premises. You haven't seen me prove God exists. I haven't seen you prove God doesn't exist. We both are operating from predetermined premises. Your premise, determined prior to this discussion, is that God doesn't exist. My premise, determined prior to this discussion is that God does exist.
I don't believe God exists on the basis of abstract arguments. I believe God exists on the basis of experiences I've had- on the basis of things I've seen and experienced. You haven't seen or experienced the things I've seen and experienced. You don't know what I've seen and experienced. I know atheists like to portray it as though experience is not valid and we can only go off abstract arguments. However, I haven't seen any atheists prove that experience is not valid and that a person shouldn't trust their own experiences. If you have such a proof, you're welcome to demonstrate it.
Because I believe in God on the basis of experience and things I've seen... as well as some other things... I can't convey to you why I believe in God.
I have explained elsewhere- "Reason" is used as a codeword for atheism. That which is atheistic is defined as "Reason" and that which is against atheism is defined as against "Reason".
Because many have this shallow view of what reason supposedly is, I will insha'Allah explicitly show how reasoning is being used:
1) I believe on the basis of experience and things I've seen (as well as some other things)
2) Because you haven't experienced my experiences, I can't fully convey to you why I believe in God
thus I'm not really trying to prove to you that God exists. If Allah wills, He will guide you.
The topic of this thread is not "Why God exists". The topic is there is no secular basis for morality. The problem people had is that I'm a Muslim who said it. Plenty of atheists have described the same thing and it wasn't really controversial (except with Marxists... Marxists were not too fond of it to my understanding). If an atheist said it among other atheists, I don't think it would really be controversial (except with Marxist types).
Quoting Moliere
A lot of theists believe in God on the basis of experiences. Atheists tend to disbelieve on the basis of abstract arguments. This is a difference between the two.
I accept the fact that you believe differently. Mao said very bluntly that political power flows from the barrel of a gun. I forget the exact wording in Wretched of the Earth but Frantz Fanon said something like that power is sovereign.
Ultimately, who controls the state is who controls the state. It isn't based on one human's reasoning or another human's reasoning. The idea that I am some sort of subhuman (which I'm not attributing to you) who doesn't use reasoning is fallacious. We both use reason but from completely different premises. Your reasoning doesn't make sense from my premises and my reasoning doesn't make sense from your premises. If you run things, I am sure you will run things on the basis of your premises. If I run things, I am sure I will insha'Allah run things on the basis of my premises. We operate from different premises and I accept that.
I think you write as though I want to convince you. I believe if God wills, God will convince you. If God wills, you will, for example, have a strange experience which goes contrary to your materialist beliefs and forces you to revise your worldview.
Clearly you haven't read the people you talk about: Sartre, de Beauvoir and even Nietzsche think morality and values are objective... just true on the basis of the meaning of the world itself, rather than granted or added by a realm beyond it.
Then you'd just need to demonstrate that morality under moral relativism has no basis, which isn't possible without stretching the meaning of "basis" out of all proportion. But good luck with that! What did you call it? Logical gymnastics. Morality under moral relativism has a basis in whatever it is relative to, obviously.
For example? Are you suggesting that you’re unable to at least outline the circumstances where killing is not immoral?
It worse than that. To argue morality is "relative" in a sense of outcomes being right for particular people, objectivity is assumed. The circumstances of one individual are understood as a true moral justification. We find that any "realtive" postion defending an individual circumstances is just objectivity.
With respect to to "moral relativism", this leaves two options: either admit to objectivity or deny moral significance entirely.
In any case, the question of God or otherwise is irrelevant because this is a necessary truth of concepts of morality itself. God is not making the difference between the presence of moral turths or not.
I've read all three of them. They were all moral relativists (except maybe Nietzsche... with Nietzsche I think it's complicated and debatable).
Word games. What is the basis of "morality" for moral relativism? One's whims and fancies? That is the "basis"?
Don't act like you're not guilty of playing word games. Whims and fancies? Trying to trivialise a position you disagree with? Anyway, it depends on what it's relative to. I've already provided the answer and given an example in a previous reply. The example I gave was the culture of the United Kingdom, which is certainly not that anything is permissible. We don't look approvingly on rape, murder, and so on. Is that really what you'd expect of a secular society? Coo-coo.
So the basis of "relative morality" is what the local culture is? You said something about the culture of the UK. I didn't see that post.
Okay. So you say the "basis" of "morality" for the moral relativist is whatever is accepted in the local culture.
So if you live in a culture where human sacrifice is accepted- then human sacrifice is okay?
It doesn't have to be relative in that sense. It's a broader position than that. It could be relative to a culture, a group, or an individual.
Quoting Ram
It can be, under moral relativism.
Quoting Ram
Relative to that culture, yes. But personally, I wouldn't approve of that aspect of that culture, as it clashes with my own sense of what is right and wrong.
What? So if you live in a society where human sacrifice is accepted, you would be against it? It clashes with your own sense of what is right and wrong?
So very strangely, I don't think you are actually a moral relativist. I think you clearly believe in an objective morality- which is inconsistent with your atheism.
I had a feeling that you were going to say something like that. Why would you jump to the conclusion that I believe in an objective morality, just because I mentioned a sense of right or wrong that's relative to my own subjective moral judgement?
That's the type of merely assertion I'm talking about. You don't actually show your claims to be truthful.
Their texts show otherwise. Sartre asserts an objective morality based on the objectivity of reason and human freedom. His ethics are somewhat similar to Kant's in this respects. He uses what is essentially the Catergorical Imperative to identify our responsibility to each other as agents of freedom.
de Beauvoir argues we ought to recognise how humans are free agents who make choices. In this space, she talks about the significance of humans actions towards each other, forming a space in which actions have objective significance to each other and a range of ethical consequences.
Nietzsche is dedicated to the objectivity of values. One of the major parts of his analysis is how states and actions of the world are characterised by meaning. His primary target is exactly the sort of nilhism which claims life had no value or meaning.
This is partly why he attacks religions so harshly. He identifies the religious move of saying "God must be there to give the world meaning" is premised on an initial idea that the world is without meaning . God only needs to be there to add meaning to the world if it lacks meaning in the first place. Thus, the malaise of "meaningless" didn't begin with atheism, but actually has far older origins that lie at the base of much religious thought.
It is factually wrong to assert these thinkers are relativists. They hold objectivity to meaning, ethics and value.
Mere assertion? Your post is utilizing mere assertion. Where are your proofs?
If you've never read Sartre and don't understand Existentialism, you're free to think what you want. Sartre was not remotely a Kantian. That you would even say that is bizarre. You are so dedicated to your agenda that you are willing to twist things. Furthermore, you don't characterize Nietzsche in an objective way either: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1u1up8/was_nietzsche_a_moral_relativist/
de Beauvoir was blatantly a relativist.
In that I was referencing what their texts talking about, showing the claim they are relativists to be a contradiction.
I've read Being & Nothingness, Existentialism is a Humanism, The Transcedence of The Ego in full, passages of his other texts and Nausea. Just the other week I was discussing the similarites of his ethics and Kant's with philosophy grad students with background in Kant . How much Sartre you read?
I'm not twisting anything. I'm talking about the content of texts, which you have clearly never examined.
You clearly aren't reading those comments on askphilosophy. They are drawing the distinction Nietzsche is not a fan of system which premise an "objective morality" that is an abstracted system of rules. With respect to meaning and value of the world, Nietzsche is clearly objective (which is why all those people in the thread, to paraphrase, are saying "It depends what you mean ").
Again, that's just an assertion. You don't go into detail de Beauvoir's thought and show how it is relativist. (We also know she's not because her texts contains postions holding people have objective meaning with respect to each other, with consequences for ethics).
Ram, you are misrepresenting my position. Without God, it's hard to see how you could get objective morality I said... not morality altogether. I think non-objective morality is based on a social contract (on agreement or convention), as did Nietzsche. I said this a couple of times already, but you didn't respond to that part.
And as other probably allready said, Nietzsche also wasn't a nihilist. He warned about nihilism in the West-European tradition because people still adhered to Christian morality, eventhough they didn't believe in its cornerstone God anymore...
Ethics will always be based on the secular as it is the only way a person can view the world and the very concepts involved in morality. I've studied various religions, both eastern and western and study is exactly what was necessary to understand them. Do I understand Islam? No, I have not studied it. Is it possible for me to grasp the morality offered by Islam and the God featured within that religion without some form of study or education in it? No doubt there are some similar concepts to be found in its cannon but as a from of morality to live by, no. Not unless you want to entertain the concept of miracles. Some way to instantly understand all the history, background and complex concepts needed to successfully adhere to the moral code Islam presents.
The claim of this discussion is - that there is no secular basis for morality. I ask you outright now: Could you adhere to Islam principles of morality without the mental concepts you've obtained through exposure and study of its religious teachings? The very concepts that influence your every thought, personal judgment and could arguably be said to influence every choice you make? Could another individual (like me) with little to no exposure regarding Islam live by the Islamic code of morality without any further exposure or study of the same religious teachings?
How does one prove incest is wrong using objective moral values (OMVs)?
It seems wrong, but I can point to biological risks and the related possibility our instinctive feelings are a product of evolution. Surely it's such feelings (irrespective of their source) that are the basis our moral judgment. So how does one account for these moral feelings under the premise OMVs exist, and how does one show this account more likely to be true than the alternative?
Nothing could be further from the truth. First, that there is no secular basis for morality, is just not true, and it doesn't take much thought to recognize that this statement is clearly false. Moreover, one doesn't need to appeal to any religious or even mystical view of things to know that there are moral and immoral acts apart from religious or mystical beliefs. I'm not going to put forth a complete moral theory, but I can give an example that is clearly objective.
If I walk up to any person and cut their arm off without good reason, then I've have committed an immoral act by definition. Moreover, it's not a subjective claim, it's objectively immoral based on the harm done; and I don't have to appeal to anything religious to recognize that it's immoral. What's the basis of this immoral act? The basis for any immoral act is that it causes harm, not all harm is immoral but all immoral acts cause a degree of harm. Moreover, we can claim that some immoral acts are much worse based on the degree of harm done. So we can start with the principle of harm. If we get back to the example, was there harm done? Yes. Is it objectively true that there was harm done? Yes. We can see the objective nature of the harm in cries of pain, the arm severed from the person, the blood, etc. We can also observe the pain of friends and family members as well as strangers. The pain is also objective.
This is a clear example of why there can and is immorality apart from any religious or mystical belief. That there are more complicated moral issues there is no doubt, but how can anyone deny that the example given is not immoral without appeal to God.
@Sam26 I think this is a very good, simple example that most people would agree is immoral. There seems to be a core morality between most cultures and peoples that condemns senseless suffering like you described in the example of cutting off someone’s arm. I also think it is true that immoral acts cause harm in some form (i.e. there is a reason to say the act is wrong). I believe your argument is as follows:
1. Cutting off someone’s arm with no good reason is objectively immoral independent of religious belief
2. To cause pain without a good reason is objectively immoral
3. Therefore, some objective moral claims exist outside of religious belief.
You seem to be pointing out a nearly universal moral value (that senselessly inflicting pain on another human is bad) which is very important, given its dominance across religious and secular worldviews alike. However, I think the question still remains: where does this notion of morality come from? When you say, “it’s objectively immoral based on the harm alone,” do you mean that there is some independent moral truth that exists which humans have the ability to perceive, connecting the pain to “wrongness”? Or, do you mean that the widely accepted idea that senseless suffering is wrong is a sufficient basis for the term “objectively immoral” because of its popularity?
I would like to challenge premise 2 (and in effect, premise 1 as well) assuming that you are calling it objectively immoral because it is a widely accepted human intuition. Suppose you were to poll people about whether it is immoral to cut off someone’s arm without good reason and it turned out there were a small group of people who did not find such an act problematic. Suppose this group becomes very influential over time or a natural disaster wipes out the people who think otherwise to that the majority of the population does not believe the act is wrong (they don’t have to think it is moral, or engage in causing pain, just that it doesn’t necessitate a moral claim either way). Would this shift in core morality change the claim that it is objectively immoral? To call pointless pain objectively immoral is to say it is universally wrong, independent of personal interpretation.
It does seem very hasty to assume morality is subjective from a secular world view simply because God is not the basis, because, similar to claims about absolute religious truths, the same can be made about the existence of moral facts independent of divine origin. However it seems important to distinguish that claims about “objective morals” be attributed to the existence of such moral truths, independent of popular opinion, otherwise the basis of morality is not in truth value but random chance or evolutionary favorability.
There is an error in the quote, it should read, "...it's objectively immoral based on the harm done," that's what I meant to say. However, your questions stand.
I think there is an objective moral principle that we generally follow as people, viz., that we shouldn't inflict undo pain on others for no good reason. I believe this is an objective moral truth that most civilized people adhere to. I don't think popularity has anything to do with it. It may be true that most people believe it, but it's not a matter of popularity. Even if a majority of people rejected it, that still would not make it right.
There is an objectivity to the facts involved (in the e.g. I gave above) that make it stand apart from what I happen to think, i.e., it's not dependent on what anyone thinks. It has to do with what makes for a good life for humans, inflicting pain on others without good reason is not something anyone in their right mind would desire. In fact, we tend to generally avoid pain, even if the pain may have a good outcome, like having an infected tooth pulled. I believe what I'm saying is not only objectively true, but I'm saying that most people recognize it as true, it's self-evident for most people.
Another final point that I already alluded to, but needs to be emphasized. It also has to do with what we value in our lives, and a life free of senseless pain seems to be a something that almost all people value; and this arises out of the kind of biological beings we are (and I'm not thinking necessarily in terms of evolution), i.e., it's the background reality of our biology, what we value, what we feel, how we reason, etc.
Hope this helps.
Thank you that does help! I think that makes a lot of sense to believe, especially in a practical sense…regardless of where these morals come from or why we believe them some of these very basic widely held ideas certainly seem to promote human flourishing in a way that their counterfactuals do not. In general, ideas like: it is good to avoid needless pain, it is good to continue to live, it is good to have freedom, etc seem natural and self-evident without examination. I think the life-promoting, self-evident nature of these core morals is a good reason to hold them and live by them because we must make choices in life with incomplete information, but I still wonder what the connection is between these “values” and their “correctness”…
The objectivity in the example you gave that you mentioned above seemed to be that the pain was undeniable and it was caused without reason, thus it must be immoral. You are assuming I suppose that this is a necessary fact about the world we live in? Is it that we call actions that promote life “moral” and things that promote death we call “immoral”?
Quoting Sam26
is it possible for this biological basis to be independent of evolution? Looking at the tenacity of life and how throughout history there is a drive in human beings to survive and create good lives, it makes sense that these life-promoting values be things we know a priori due to the “background reality of our biology.” If the inclination to follow that objective moral truth is innate in human beings, is it distinct from an evolutionary mechanism optimizing survival and reproduction? The question becomes: are actions moral on account of evolutionary advantage or are they moral in themselves and also coincidentally evolutionarily advantageous? The core of my questions here is whether these morals are based on an independent truth value or the product of random variation and natural selection (I sure hope not
I know you said you are not necessarily thinking in the terms of evolution, so if you see another explanation I would love to hear it! (also some of these thoughts come from Richard Joyce’s Evolution of Morality if you want to check it out)
I disagree with the claim that this would be objective. You already state it yourself; "... for no good reason." Who decides what is a good reason? The perpetrator? The victim? A neutral third? All of these will have very different ideas of what a good reason might be. And why would any of their opinions be more valuable than that of the other?
If we were to take such a narrow definition of morality, the only thing that would be immoral would be those acts committed by a psychopath. And even then I doubt you can provide an objective argument to why the psychopath's reasons are "not good".
Quoting Sam26
You can't believe something is objectively true. This is like saying "I believe God is objectively real". It is either true, or you simply do not know whether it is true. Whether such a (perceived) truth would be objective is an entirely different matter and given the inherent subjective nature of human existence highly unlikely. Especially on a topic like morality I doubt anyone's ability to present a good case for objective truth.
That people recognize it as true or regard it as self-evident is no proof of objective truth. People used to think the Earth was flat. Even if the whole world believed it, it wouldn't make it true.
Quoting Sam26
Reasoning out of biology seems unsound. There is no morality in nature, just survival. We also can't start cherry picking. If we make the (curious) claim that morality should be based on our biology, our entire biology should be moral, and by modern standards it clearly isn't. Think for example of the fact that girls become fertile around the age of twelve and what that implicates.
In short, morality based on biology would essentially be based on survival, which, if we could even call it morality, would be worth next to nothing.
Morality has to be objective to make sense, because if it were subjective it means it is pliable, and the entire concept of good and evil falls apart. The only way one could soundly argue the existence of morality is by reference to a force greater than man to impose these rules upon him. But that only brings us to the next hurdle; proving there is such a force, but that is a different debate.
This response is also to Tenderfoot.
Let's get back to my example, which by the way, needs no appeal to anything higher in order to determine that it's immoral.
If I walk up to any person and cut their arm off without good reason, then I've have committed an immoral act by definition. Moreover, it's not a subjective claim, it's objectively immoral based on the harm done; and I don't have to appeal to anything religious to recognize that it's immoral.
If I understand you correctly, there is nothing about this example that is objectively immoral? The screams of the person in pain, the arm on the ground, the blood, the anguish of friends and family, none of this is objectively true? This, it seems, is a paragon case of immorality. One doesn't need to appeal to anything beyond the case itself. Are you saying that the concept of immorality doesn't apply in this case, independent of what I happen to think?
If I was teaching someone how to use the concept immoral, and they didn't use it in this case, I would assert that they didn't know how to use the word correctly. In virtually every case of immorality, the harm done is the reason it's referred to as immoral. And in cases where we argue over whether something is or is not immoral, usually it's because we don't see the harm, i.e., it's not clear that harm was done.
The question is, why do I need to appeal to anything beyond the example to defend the idea that this act (my example) is immoral? Are you making the claim that the only way I would know this act is immoral is by appealing to something metaphysical, for example, God?
All I need to appeal to is the harm, nothing further. If I can make a clear case of the harm done, then I can make the claim that it's immoral, as in the example.
Who decides what's reasonable? We do. There are principles of correct reason that are applied, just as there are principles of mathematics that determine the correct and incorrect use of mathematical symbols. Moreover, I would say that these principles are discoverable. They are built into the universe, i.e., they are built into the background of reality. For example, the principle of noncontradiction is not something I can simply deny based on someone's whim. If you deny it, then you deny the very ability to talk about these ideas in a rational manner. You couldn't even posit if there was religious truth without it. How would you argue that your ideas are true verses my ideas or arguments? So it's not a matter of someone deciding what's reasonable, it's about the objective principles. It's about the very idea of reasoning from one proposition to another.
I don't see atheists strapping bombs to their chest and blowing people up.
There's nothing objectively immoral about it, if we argue from a secular standpoint, because without religion there is no basis for objective morality.
What you sketch cannot be the basis of objective morality, because it would imply that people's dispositions are what determine whether or not an action is immoral. This means that if you take into account the victim and the onlookers, you must also take into account the disposition of the perpetrator and perhaps he is quite happy with what he's done. Or perhaps some of the onlookers did not like the victim and are quite content seeing him suffer. If you want to base objective morality on emotions, which sounds impossible at the onset, you cannot ignore the other side of the coin.
Quoting Sam26
Yet, I can think of dozens of examples where harm is done, but the act is not immoral. Thus, harm cannot be the sole factor. In a previous post you argued "harm without good reason", and I think we have established that "good reason" is entirely subjective and therefore cannot be used (logically) to argue objective morality.
Quoting Sam26
I would argue that you're using the word 'immoral' wrong. Morality is the absolute definition of good and evil. It cannot be pliable, otherwise it loses all its meaning. You're describing your disposition towards something, namely you think it's bad to cut someone's arm off for no reason. That's a reasonable thing to say. But calling it immoral is to say it is objectively bad, and without a force greater than man to determine what is objectively good and bad, that argument does not work. A force greater than man implies a vertical relationship, in other words, man would have a master. If there is no such force, then man has no master and thus the emotions and disposition of the perpetrator in your argument is worth just as much as the emotions and disposition as the victim, and therefore we cannot call it objectively bad.
Quoting Sam26
Unless your willing to argue that in all cases where harm is caused, it is caused by an immoral act (including for example, self defense), this is unsatisfactory.
Quoting Sam26
This sounds very nonsecular to me. I've heard similar theories described in lectures by Manly P. Hall and studies of Hermeticism, for example. There's nothing wrong with such views. In fact, I would largely sympathize with this approach, but to imply that there are principles built into reality that dictate how man should act is basically the same as admitting to a power greater than man, and thus to a form of God, or deity, or divine, but in a different sense than we're used to with the Abrahamic religions.
Yes, the pain is undeniable, i.e., we can be as objectively certain about the pain, and the other components of the act (the arm on the ground, the blood, the pain of observers, etc). And of course the other important component is that the act was committed without good reason.
I don't want to word it the way to you did, viz., "...actions that promote life "moral" and things that promote death we call "immoral"?" For purposes of my argument, all I want to say is that all immoral acts have the property of causing harm, and for most of these kinds of actions we're able to discern the harm, and thus make the claim that it's immoral. Again, though, it must be pointed out for others reading this, that not all harm is immoral, but all immoral acts do cause harm.
Quoting tenderfoot
When I talk about biology in reference to this argument, I'm simply pointing out that it's a fact of our biology that we experience pain; and this fact is part of what contributes to our experiences of pain, and how we talk about pain (pain behavior). Moreover, it's not something derived from my personal experience of pain, although there is that component, but our concepts are developed as we interact with others in social settings. So, we use the concepts of immoral, pain, objective, subjective, reason, etc., as we interact with others, so we learn to use these concepts in relation to others. They aren't dependent on metaphysical constructs. That doesn't mean there isn't a metaphysical reality, only that the way we talk about things, including immoral things, and what we mean by these concepts, is not dependent in a way that forces us to appeal to the metaphysical.
Let's use this analogy, let's say that I learned logic from professor X, but I don't need to appeal to professor X every time I make a claim about a deductive argument. So, if I say a deductive argument must be valid, I don't need to also add, because professor X said so, but I make the claim because those are the facts of deductive arguments. This analogy isn't perfect, but it illustrates an important point.
One could claim, if you believe in God, that God has access to the same facts about what makes something immoral, and therefore gives a set of commandments based on the same reasoning about harm.
I think there is something much deeper here than evolutionary mechanisms. I see some things as having an intrinsic worth, or intrinsic value, and causing harm without good reason is one such value that serves us well across a wide swath of our lives.
To answer your last question would take a lot of time, but since I've been writing about epistemology in another thread, let me refer you to the last few posts in the following:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1314/a-wittgenstein-commentary