[Pensive]

Interesting idea. I know I am going to cop it from a number of people but that's all right. I am interested to hear people's thoughts. To elaborate a bit... without going into post modernism too much, if you do not believe in a God then how can there be any truth. What is to say that mass murder(as an extreme example) is wrong is the collective society deems that it is. Most of societal "morals"... well they're actually based on Church principles - but ignoring that... now a days convenience, practicality and "greater good" play the most important determinants in the law and the acceptance of a society's collective "morals".

Another thing... truth... do you believe in an absolute truth? Ok now I am getting into the complexities of post modernism.

I won't say what I think on any of these issues yet but I
Am interested in what others have to say.
Looking forward to discussing and debating this...
Grace

[martinizing2]

I don't think morals require God.

A simplistic summery

I think something is immoral if it is beneficial to one at anothers expense
Or taking advantage of another person because they are unable to resist or realize what is happening.

Morality is living your life as you please , as long as it has no negative effects on others.


Absolute truth , the phrase seems redundant.
Truth is black or white.
It is true. Or it isn't.

Slightly dead would be the same thing.

Is this a semantics quiz?

[TUT317]

Interesting idea. I know I am going to cop it from a number of people but thats alright. I am interested to hear people's thoughts. To elaborate a bit...without going into post modernism too much, if you do not believe in a God then how can there be any truth. What is to say that mass murder(as an extreme example) is wrong is the collective society deems that it is. Most of societal "morals"...well they're actually based on Church principles - but ignoring that...now a days convenience, practicality and "greater good" play the most important determinants in the law and the acceptance of a society's collective "morals".

Another thing...truth...do you believe in an absolute truth? Ok now I am getting into the complexities of post modernism.

I won't say what I think on any of these issues yet but I
am interested in what others have to say.
Looking forward to discussing and debating this...

Grace

Hi pensive,

The answer to the first question is no. Morality doesn't require God. As to the worth of moral theories without God- well, that is a entirely different question. I think God is important to the question of morality, but that's just my opinion.

The best way to look at this is to put ethical theories under three classifications; naturalism, non naturalism and emotivism.

A theory is naturalistic if it says that moral judgments are true and false and that such judgments are reducible to the ideas contained within the sciences. For example, psychology.

A non naturalist theory holds that moral judgments are true for false, but they are not reducible to any natural science. God as a moral law giver is the best example of a non naturalistic ethical theory.

There is often confusion ( especially in this type of forum) between naturalism and emotivist theory. They are not the same. Emotivism holds that moral judgments are neither true nor false. Postmodernism is not about emotivism in ethics. Doing what ever 'feels right' at the time is not an naturalistic theory.

Most naturalistic theory make some type of claim to objectivity. Utilitarianism for example, say that moral judgments are a way of making a claim about they way people think but is not necessarily a subjectivist theory.

Regards

Tut

[ScottGem]

First, you are reversing things. Religion was created to provide explanations for the unexplainable. It was also created to provide backup as to why people should follow moral laws. So your whole premise falls apart there.

Most of societal morals are based on the experiences societies have had in dealing with the necessities of people co-existing within a society.

[NeedKarma]

Disagree with the premise.

[Fr_Chuck]

If your belief is to be considered valid, then those who believe in no God, would have no concept of moral values. Which is of course far from the truth.

Even in those areas without religion as we know them today, often God's such as the Air or Sun or Wind were used to merely explain why things happened. Often when things did not happen that way, the felt Gods had become mad.
But these gods did not relate any values of morals, stealing, killing, robbing.

Morals were developed from a need of society to interact in ways that provided for the primal needs of its members, safety and security

[Pensive]

Hmm... interesting responses. Martinizing2 -you're commment on absolute truth. You state that truth is black or white. I beg to differ. In this discussion I believe that is it important to bear in mind that there are 2 forms of "truth" - subjective and absolute. A subjective truth is a "truth" that is relative - generally an opinion of sorts. A simple example "the day is hot" this may be true in one person's opinion but not in another. That "truth" is subjective. An absolute true is as you stated black or white. An example: The earth is round. That is an absolute despite the fact that for hundreds of years every living person believed otherwise.

So to the point of morals. This is what you said OK?
"I think something is immoral if it is beneficial to one at anothers expense
Or taking advantage of another person because they are unable to resist or realize what is happening.

Morality is living your life as you please , as long as it has no negative effects on others."

I very pragmatic and reasonable approach to life. However, on the idea of truth. You said that you think morals are determined by their affects on other people. The problem with that is that it is subjective. It is debatable and though you may fully believe it, and I aggree it is very logical, there are cultures which have different "morals". For truth to be absolute it cannot be subjective or dependent on society, environment etc. Hence is it possible to have absolute morals?

When I posed this questions(s)I did not have - still don't have - a concrete viewpoint on the issue, I am simply exploring the topic out of interest.

Ok here's another thought, IF (in bold) God does exist, then whether the majority of the world believe it or not it would be absolute - correct? Hypothetically? If not then as far as my thinking processes have gone I cannot see how there can be any absolutes - at least as far as morals go. And on that that line of thought then one view is no better than another.

[Pensive]

Hey Tut,
Thanks for the reply. It sounds as though you have studied this area somwhat. On the whole naturalist, non-naturalist and emotivism - I haven't looked into them in great depth in the past so when I get a chance I will have a look at them in greater detail. I liked your distinction between being able to have morals without God but questioning their value. An interesting idea, one I hadn't thought of.

I will get back to you with some further thoughts once I have looked into the three ethical theories some more. Thanks - I like finding out new things that I can research into. Whether I agree with them or not it is interesting none the less.

To be continued... =)

[Pensive]

I agree with the latter statement. But.. in that case do morals have credibility as they are subjective to culture and time?

[ScottGem]

Comments on this post
Pensive : I agree with the latter statement. But.. in that case do morals have credibility as they are subjective to culture and time?

Not really. Most morality is is pretty universal. The biggest change has been the application of a set of morals outside one's own culture. As the global community has become smaller morality has become more universal.

[excon]

Hello P:

Let me ask you this. Is your religion the only thing standing in the way from you acting like an animal?

excon

[JoeT777]

Morals are those rules or principals used to judge whether an action is good or bad. Moral theology deals with right actions conforming to Divine Law and Natural Law resulting in judicial and virtuous order preserving the common good. There are morals dealing with positive law and primitive law (manmade laws) which, unlike Divine Law and Natural Law, can be suspended or dispensed with.

Consequently, when we are asked does a universal moral law require a moral law giver”, you must answer emphatically, yes. And the Creator is that Law giver. Moral precepts that can be suspended or done away with ultimately lead to anarchy – disorder; the absence of justice and virtues will eventually lead to men becoming base animals.

“Foolish therefore was the opinion of those who said that the corruptible lower world, or individual things, or that even human affairs, were not subject to the Divine government. These are represented as saying, "God hath abandoned the earth" (Ezekiel 9:9).” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, I, Q 103, 5

JoeT

[TUT317]

Consequently, when we are asked does a universal moral law require a moral law giver”, you must answer emphatically, yes. And the Creator is that Law giver. Moral precepts that can be suspended or done away with ultimately lead to anarchy – disorder; the absence of justice and virtues will eventually lead to men becoming base animals.



JoeT

HI Joe,

Sorry to disagree with you on a particular point.

Yes, the Creator is a law giver and his laws are universal. But other ethical theories which don't require a law giver are also universal.

There are many examples of moral subjectivist theories which are universal. It is highly debatable as to the worth of such theories but they can make a claim to universality.

Regards

Tut

[TUT317]

Hmm...interesting responses. Martinizing2 -you're commment on absolute truth. You state that truth is black or white. I beg to differ. In this discussion I believe that is it important to bear in mind that there are 2 forms of "truth" - subjective and absolute. A subjective truth is a "truth" that is relative - generally an opinion of sorts. A simple example "the day is hot" this may be true in one person's opinion but not in another. That "truth" is subjective. An absolute true is as you stated black or white. An example: The earth is round. That is an absolute despite the fact that for hundreds of years every living person believed otherwise.

Hi again Pensive,

This is where it can get a little bit tricky.

If,'the day is hot' is an expression of a moral opinion ( it's not, but just imagine it was) then it would be called a meta ethical subjectivist position.The reason being is that it is an EXPRESSION of morality. Perhaps it could expressed as, "Phew! It is hot today' ( still assuming days being hot can be expressed as a moral statement).

You are right when you say this is a subjectivist point of view. Someone else might say, 'Hoo-ra for hot days!'. Clearly these two views are in conflict. Obviously, one person likes hot days and the other person doesn't. It is impossible to reconcile these points of view they are simply an EXPRESSION of individual FEELINGS. There is no objectivity.

Things would change dramatically if someone said, 'Everyone should steal something when it is a hot day'. This is a ethical statement which makes some claim towards being an universal or absolute truth.

I think there is a need to be clear on this distinction before the discussion can move on. The point I made earlier about about subjectivism and ethics is important. Subjective ethical theories can be absolute truths. Kant's categorical imperative springs to mind.

The obvious question here is what is 'an absolute truth' The only answer I can come up with is that an absolute truth must be universal. That is, it must be true for all times and all places- past, present and future. It doesn't seem to matter where it originates.

I am not sure if this helps

Regards

Tut

[JoeT777]

HI Joe,

Sorry to disagree with you on a particular point.

Yes, the Creator is a law giver and his laws are universal. But other ethical theories which don't require a law giver are also universal.

There are many examples of moral subjectivist theories which are universal. It is highly debatable as to the worth of such theories but they can make a claim to universality.

Regards

Tut

This is the first time you’ve really piquéd my interest. How is it possible to have a universal ‘subjective’ law or moral? How would a prime or first truth be detrmined without basing it on reality but instead on mere perception? Whose perception and to what good would the moral be directed at? Wouldn’t this fit more with utilitarianism or hedonism?

JoeT

[JoeT777]

If, 'the day is hot' is an expression of a moral opinion (it's not, but just imagine it was) then it would be called a meta ethical subjectivist position. The reason being is that it is an EXPRESSION of morality. Perhaps it could be express as, "Phew! it is hot today' ( still assuming days being hot can be expressed as a moral statement).

Morals are the precepts or rules by which human voluntary acts are judged with regard to human duty and happiness as either good, bad or indifferent. “Phew! It is hot today”, is a statement of truth/or non-truth, it's subjective in nature only gives minimum insight into what temperature represents 'hot'. It is not related to an ACT so it can't be 'moral'. The statement,"Phew! It is hot today' is true only if it corresponds to reality and it fits the purpose of the statement – that is it expresses that the ambient temperature is hot. It doesn't tell us if Mr. Phew's actions are good or bad.

Things would change dramatically if someone said, 'Everyone should steal something when it is a hot day'. This is a ethical statement which makes some claim towards being an universal or absolute truth.

On which planet?

I think there is a need to be clear on this distinction before the discussion can move on. The point I made earlier about subjectivism and ethics is important. Subjective ethical theories can be absolute truths. Kant's categorical imperative springs to mind.

Oh, I should have guessed, the father of enlightenment, Immanuel Kant. It's like following an unlit candle into a blizzard at night – it doesn't cast any light, won't throw a shadow, nor does it give any warmth and you waste all your energy trying to light the damn thing up. Sure thing – Enlightenment! Add Locke and Hume and you've got the three atheist stooges.

I am not sure if this helps

It didn't help me! Gee Willikers, it's no wonder that Pensive is pensive.

JoeT

[Pensive]

Ok... the "day is hot" part was not referring to morals but simply to the different forms of truth.I simply wanted to clarify that before asserting it into a discussion on morals.
I liked your definition for absolute truth by the way.

[Pensive]

Hey Excon,
"Lemme ask you this. Is your religion the only thing standing in the way from you acting like an animal?"
In answer to your question... by no means. If I were an atheist then I would simply follow the codes and accepted "morals" that the society around me dictated were right.

In my question my first sentence was "morals require God". I was going to write "do morals require God" but decided that the former would involk a more response. Just to clarify by no means was it my intent to incinuate that 90%, or whatever the figure is, of the worlds popualation act like animals. I think it is fair to say that one of the main things which diffentiate us from animals is our ability to determine write and wrong i.e. morals.

I guess what I was/still am hung up on is the subjectivity of morals. I think almost everyone who has commented on this forum has agree that that morals are subjective - - they are determined by the society and time.

I don't really understand that.. I agree with it but see... for me something is either right or is isn't. Absolutism if you like. Subjectivity implys that in a sense something - lets use stealing as an example - can be both right AND wrong. In one culture it may be right, in another it may be considered wrong. How can it be both? Surely it must be either right OR wrong?

Can anyone enlighten me on my dilema?

[excon]

I guess what I was/still am hung up on is the subjectivity of morals. I think almost everyone who has commented on this forum has agree that that morals are subjective - - they are determined by the society and time period.

Can anyone enlighten me on my dilema?

Hello again, P:

I don't think you added correctly. Even if you did, there was ONE person here who told you that morals aren't subjective, and that MOST societies adopt similar ones. That would be ScottGem. Stealing is stealing, no matter what tribe you belong to. Murder is murder and hurting people is hurting people... EVERYBODY recognizes that stuff. It IS universal.

excon

[NeedKarma]

Hello again, P:

I don't think you added correctly. Even if you did, there was ONE person here who told you that morals aren't subjective, and that MOST societies adopt similar ones. That would be ScottGem. Stealing is stealing, no matter what tribe you belong to. Murder is murder and hurting people is hurting people.... EVERYBODY recognizes that stuff. It IS universal.

Good post.
Case in point: Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions