[excon]

Both of these, to my mind, seem to necessitate the existence of a God - although perhaps I haven't answered the question :)

Hello h:

What about the cops? They uphold MORAL law.

excon

[De Maria]

Hello h:

What about the cops? They uphold MORAL law.

excon

You are assuming the cops are upholding the law of God. However not all laws are moral as some laws contradict and disobey the law of God.

It is true however, that cops are supposed to uphold God's laws:
Romans 13:3-5 (King James Version)

3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

[TUT317]

For me personally, morality needs to be two things: valid (true) and binding (authoritative).

The first requires a moral law. If there is no moral law, then all morality becomes either personal opinion or social convention. Either way it is subjective. If it is subjective, then I have no right to force my moral beliefs (i.e. murder is wrong) on others. This is a problem for the subjectivist.

Secondly, it must be binding. This is why a moral law requires a moral lawgiver. What is the point of the law if there are no policemen to enforce it? Any form of morality must be able to motivate people to choose good over evil.

Both of these, to my mind, seem to necessitate the existence of a God - although perhaps I haven't answered the question :)

Hi hopeufeelbetter,

Interesting first point you have raised in relation to subjectivism and ethics.

The main argument for subjectivism seems to based on the type of language we used when making moral judgments. These judgements are more than just statements or DESCRIPTIONS- they are also PRESCRIPTIONS. In other words, they are imperatives or commands to do something. As such they also seems to be expressions of opinion or values and as such it does not make sense to ask if they are true or false. They are simply commands.

If we take this line of reasoning then in the end all ethical theories are subjective. What God commands breaks down to a subjectivist explanation. Truth or falsity doesn't come into it. It is simply what God wants.

The second point is that morality should not be enforced by some outside agency. If we are coerced in doing something then it is not freely chosen. On this basis it can't be a moral decision.


Regards

Tut

[hopeufeelbetter]

I agree Tut. But what I am not talking about is coercion.

Let me illustrate. Suppose we constructed a theory of objective morality without God, hypothetically, some kind of neo-platonism. We have a set of values labelled 'good' and a set of values labelled 'evil'. What is to stop me from siding with 'evil' over the 'good' values. Especially, when it can be personally advantageous to sometimes do the wrong thing - i.e. steal.

Prescriptivism is equally flawed, in my mind, as descriptive meta-ethical theories, as there simply is no metaphysical warrant for universalizing these imperatives.

Commands from God, I would assert, are not ultimately subjective, because they are not simply arbitrary but stem from the fixed, and all-good nature of God (this I believe, is the best explanation for the origin of morality)

[TUT317]

I agree Tut. But what I am not talking about is coercion.

Let me illustrate. Suppose we constructed a theory of objective morality without God, hypothetically, some kind of neo-platonism. We have a set of values labelled 'good' and a set of values labelled 'evil'. What is to stop me from siding with 'evil' over the 'good' values. Especially, when it can be personally advantageous to sometimes do the wrong thing - i.e. steal.

Prescriptivism is equally flawed, in my mind, as descriptive meta-ethical theories, as there simply is no metaphysical warrant for universalizing these imperatives.

Commands from God, I would assert, are not ultimately subjective, because they are not simply arbitrary but stem from the fixed, and all-good nature of God (this I believe, is the best explanation for the origin of morality)

Hi again, Hopufeelbetter,

In order to construct a hypothetical objective theory without God we need not turn to neo-Platonism. We can use what is termed the "Ideal Observer Theory"

This is a meta ethical theory. Let us imagine there is no God but instead replace him with a hypothetical ideal observer. Such a theory claims that ethical statements express propositions and such propositions are true. These propositions are true because they express an attitude by an ideal observer.The ideal observer being a person who as far as humanly possible is aware of all the facts pertaining to morality. In other words, this means the total of what humans know about ethical theory.

This theory states that ethical judgments are facts that a fully informed observer would make. There is nothing to stop you siding with evil except that the ideal observer would say to you 'You should not steal because if you 'weighed' everything up you would come to the conclusion that to steal is not advantageous for society and yourself".

Regards

Tut

[Pensive]

Hey Hopeyoufeelbetter,
Your response was well thought out and logical. It was interesting that you made the point that morals must be binding. I was just discussing that very point with a friend of mine a few days ago =)

Tut brought up the point that "morality should not be enforced by some outside agency. If we are coerced in doing something then it is not freely chosen. On this basis it can't be a moral decision." All right, if a person did something - an action considered morally "good" - simply because they were coerced into doing it then I aggree that it would not be a "moral decision". However, I do think that it is necessary for moral enforcement within a society. It mentions in Romans that it is generally only by the law that an individual is able to recognise their "sin". However the law would have no crediblity or purpose were it not reinforced - hopeufeelbetter, you mentioned Police for this purpose.

Romans 3:20(NIV)"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."

So though the coercion of the law - in this case I am making the assumption that the law aligns itself with the fixed morals of God - does not merit an individual righteousness or personal integrity, it is necessary.

In an ideal society perhaps you could argue that moral enforcement or laws were not necessary as Romans(NIV) 2:15 "the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them". In this ideal sinaro, if every person internally possessed the same moral law and adhered to it, then enforcement would not be necessary as each person would be already internally bound by it. But sadly this is not the case.

Anyway there are a few thoughts =)
May I ask why you chose the name 'hopeufeelbetter'?

[hopeufeelbetter]

Again I think my point about the binding nature of morality that I made has been misunderstood. I am not so much talking about whether it is enforced, but that there is a reason in place that would cause me to choose good over evil.

However, I fully agree with Pensive's rejoinder. Moral enforcement, the arbitration of justice seems to be a core component of any moral system.

Why did I choose the name hopeufeelbetter? Completely unrelated to the present discussion of morality, a friend of mine was not feeling too good not so long ago and I was hoping that it would cheer her up.

[harmonybox]

Before a child is introduced to a superior being, outside authority, spiritual guide, or any other label we want to put out there he/she only knows right or wrong by what a parent or other guardian teaches them. The morals of a child are learned from others and the environment around him/her - in my humble opinion of course.

With that being said, I personally do not believe that morals are dependent upon laws from God or any other higher being. I am personally not Christian or of any other faith. I do not believe in a higher being.

I do believe that life is subjective and everything is relative. Collectively we teach ourselves what we believe to be right and wrong. It's about perception of life and what we believe to reality. Is there truly any two people even of the same belief system that agree 100% on what is right or wrong... I don't believe so.

[Pensive]

That was thoughtful =)

[Pensive]

All right harmonybox... let me pose you this then - why are there children(very young ones at times) who oppose their parents beliefs and that perhaps of their society and peers? We see many examples of people with intense individual identities who stand up for what they believe even, paradoxically, at the expense of the relationships that they crave and at the risk of public rejection.

"Is there truly any two people even of the same belief system that agree 100% on what is right or wrong...I don't believe so." Well no there aren't. But that doesn't undermine a devine/absolute set of moral beliefs. Just because people debate an absolute does change its nature.

[Pensive]

Hey,
This is irrelevant to our discussion. But before I continue it would be helpful to know a little more about the sight - as I am new to itand haven't figured out all the workings as of yet. Would anyone care to assist me? Two questions... how do you quote people and what is the reputation box? Does it have any purpose?

[NeedKarma]

Alright harmonybox...let me pose you this then - why are there children(very young ones at times) who oppose their parents beliefs and that perhaps of their society and peers? We see many examples of people with intense individual identities who stand up for what they believe even, paradoxically, at the expense of the relationships that they crave and at the risk of public rejection.

I'm not sure what the answer would prove since the situation you pose happens to children of believers and of non-believers.

[Pensive]

Tut, the problem with the meta ethical theory is that though it entirly pragmatic - more widerly though, not just personally - it is still subjective. What would happen if 2 "fully informed" observers were to come to different conclusions?

[Pensive]

Do you think it is possible, in fact, to have a fully informed observer besides God? If you cannot have an ideal observer how is anyone "qualified" if you like to make the judgement as to what is "advantageous" or moral?

[Pensive]

Yes morality is "pretty universal" but not entirely. Check out Afghanistan for one example but there are plenty of others. So morals are still subjective and therefore still lack credibility. The problem remains.

[Pensive]

I realise that but H. deemed that a child only gets his sense of wrong and right from his parents and society. I was simply pointing out that this is not the case.Besides a person can chose to reject truth or accept it -there is always a choice.

[TUT317]

Hi Pensive,

Two very good questions you raise in relation to an ideal observer theory.

Even though the ideal observer theory claims to be objective, in may in fact be subjective ( as you suggest).

What happens if two fully informed observers come to different conclusions? Also, you ask Is it possible to have a fully informed observer besides God? How can an idea observer, or perhaps a committee of ideal observers that can make moral decisions

These are very good points and very good questions you raise. I will attempt to answer them in a wider context.

The ideal observer theory is very similar to the divine command theory. If one is subjective then the other is also subjective. If one is objective then both are objective. What we can predicate of one we can predicate of the other.

If you believe in God then you will probably go with the divine command theory. If you don't believe in God then will might choose the ideal observer theory.

The important point is that they are both deontological theories. That is, they stress the importance of duty and obligation as the best explanation of a moral person. By observing certain duties and rules the individual will flourish. It is easier to describe such theory as, examples of 'virtue ethics'.

Clearly two fully informed ideal observers may well come to different conclusions in relation to what constitutes a virtuous person. This would especially be true if the two ideal observers came from different cultural backgrounds.

Now it can be argued that the divine command theory doesn't have this problem because God doesn't come from a particular cultural background. This may well be the case with God but it doesn't apply to humans. What was considered virtuous at one time in history may no longer be seen to be such today. It is difficult to establish the nature of virtue in a pluralistic society, especially in relations to commands.


Regards

Tut

[De Maria]

Hey,
This is irrelevant to our discussion. But before I continue it would be helpful to know a little more about the sight - as I am new to itand haven't figured out all the workings as of yet. Would anyone care to assist me?

Sure.

Two questions... how do you quote people

The easiest way is to press the "quote user" button at the bottom of the message to which you want to respond.

That will bring back one quote at the top of the page in your edit box.

If you want to break that quote into several quotes, look at the end of that quote. You will see a "/" followed by the word "quote" in brackets. It is called the endquote. Every quote has a beginquote command and an endquote command.

Look at the top of the quote that was automatically placed in there by your computer and you will see the begin quote command.

Copy those wherever you want to make shorter quotes.

and what is the reputation box? Does it have any purpose?

Just to say you approve or disapprove of a message. I think once someone accumulates enough reputation points, they become eligible to be named moderators or something. I've forgotten the exact rule.

Sincerely,

[harmonybox]

Alright harmonybox...let me pose you this then - why are there children(very young ones at times) who oppose their parents beliefs and that perhaps of their society and peers? We see many examples of people with intense individual identities who stand up for what they believe even, paradoxically, at the expense of the relationships that they crave and at the risk of public rejection.

"Is there truly any two people even of the same belief system that agree 100% on what is right or wrong...I don't believe so." Well no there aren't. But that doesn't undermine a devine/absolute set of moral beliefs. Just because people debate an absolute does change its nature.

To the first part, I really meant infants to early toddler ages. Any child prior to having developed physical or mental independence on the scale of social thought and reason. Children any older than that would have, of course, developed some sense of who they are and how they interrupt the world around them. Whether they defy family or other social norms (whatever that may be in their environment) would be an independent response that again is subjective and relative to the circumstances. (imho)

As for the second part, I never said I didn't believe in a divine or absolute force only that I didn't believe in a higher being. With that said, I believe that we are small parts of a collective and inseparable whole. In that case, in a subtle way, there would be a <b>sense</B> of an absolute set of moral beliefs, but can that same set be applied to the entire universe?

For those that believe in God (or any god for that matter) then I would guess it would be difficult to come to any other conclusion, and vice versa for those of us that may have alternative belief systems.

From a cultural stand point, would you agree that cultures that fall outside of Christian beliefs do not have the same morals as those of Christians? Where would they fall in the spectrum of an absolute set of morals? If there truly is an absolute at all.

Some would insist that only energy and how it's processed through various mediums is the 'Absolute' or God. That puts a whole new spin on everything and of course is an abrupt turn from the topic we are on. I will leave it at that so we can stay on topic.

[De Maria]

Pensive - that is a very interesting question :) You are obviously a person of great thought and depth.

Reading through the posts, I can't help thinking that a topic like morality, so integral to our day to day lives, has become a little cerebral. For what it is worth, I would like to add my ten cents worth.

For me personally, morality needs to be two things: valid (true) and binding (authoritative).

The first requires a moral law. If there is no moral law, then all morality becomes either personal opinion or social convention. Either way it is subjective. If it is subjective, then I have no right to force my moral beliefs (i.e. murder is wrong) on others. This is a problem for the subjectivist.

Secondly, it must be binding. This is why a moral law requires a moral lawgiver. What is the point of the law if there are no policemen to enforce it? Any form of morality must be able to motivate people to choose good over evil.

Both of these, to my mind, seem to necessitate the existence of a God - although perhaps I haven't answered the question :)

For me, those are the reasons for the necessity of the Church.

In other words, those are the reasons I don't believe in Scripture alone.

For instance, the Commandments I consider all true. But God doesn't visibly move to enforce His Commandments. In the past, He left it with the authority of the Jews, beginning with Moses.

In the New Covenant, He gave that authority to the Church.

Ultimately, on the day of Judgement, God will judge all based upon His law.