Absurdity of Morality Apart From God

[seer]

The argument would go something like this:

• (1) For morality to be rational, there must be ultimate justice.

• (2) We mortal and fallible beings cannot achieve ultimate justice.

• (3) There must be some supernatural being who can achieve ultimate justice.

• (4) For morality to be rational, God must exist.

[Diogenes]

The argument would go something like this:

• (1) For morality to be rational, there must be ultimate justice.

If so, we can entertain the dharmic religions. That said, I disagree as there's nothing about morality conceptually that requires "ultimate justice".

• (2) We mortal and fallible beings cannot achieve ultimate justice.

Following the dharmic system, humans can achieve nirvana, at least theoretically.

• (3) There must be some supernatural being who can achieve ultimate justice.

Under the dharmic systems, "ultimate justice" can be achieved through the regular flow of the universe and the human navigating that flow.

• (4) For morality to be rational, God must exist.

Doubtful.

[seer]

If so, we can entertain the dharmic religions. That said, I disagree as there's nothing about morality conceptually that requires "ultimate justice".

So if you had a society where murder was morally and illegally wrong but murderers were never brought to justice wouldn't that be absurd?

Following the dharmic system, humans can achieve nirvana, at least theoretically.

Under the dharmic systems, "ultimate justice" can be achieved through the regular flow of the universe and the human navigating that flow.

Doubtful.

What enforces justice in your dharmic system?

[Diogenes]

So if you had a society where murder was morally and illegally wrong but murderers were never brought to justice wouldn't that be absurd?

It would be a failure on the part of the State to not enforce the laws, so it would be "absurd" in that sense. In the broader sense, there's nothing logically absurd with someone committing an illegal or immoral action and not being punished for it.

What enforces justice in your dharmic system?

I don't have a dharmic system. Presumably there's some kind of metaphysical property that functions as some kind of indicator. There are non-theistic dharmic systems. The mechanics are for them to figure out.

[Starlight]

(1) For morality to be rational, there must be ultimate justice.

That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I am not sure what you are even trying to say here. Morality isn't a thinking being so it can't 'act rationally' (i.e. 'be rational'). Is there therefore an unstated human somewhere in that sentence who's performing actions?

Also "ultimate justice" is confusing me as to whether you mean "the existence of a post-death judgement (regardless of how just it is)" (i.e. 'ultimate' in the sense of 'eventual') or "on the cosmic scale every wrongdoers will receive just punishment" (i.e. some kind of karma exists be it at God's hands or some others) or "the certain belief/knowledge in the minds of all that just punishment will occur for their future wrong acts" (i.e. belief or knowledge of God/Christianity/an afterlife judgement)?

I'm wondering if the statement you're trying to make is "For it to be rational for a human to act morally, they must have the belief that they will be certainly punished if they act immorality".
i.e. the classic idea that if people are scared of punishment from God after death if they act badly, it might psychologically motivate them to act well.

If that's what your getting at, your use of the word 'rational' is a little bit out of place. Rationality is something quite a bit different to self-preservation instinct.

I note that if that's even your argument, it's not very compatible with mainstream protestant Christianity, given Christians don't believe they'll suffer from their wrongdoings. Christ, not them, suffers. So fear of suffering on their part isn't going to motivate them to avoid wrongdoings.

I can't make any sense of the rest of your argument, primarily because I can't make any sense of that first sentence.

Though in my looooooong discussions with you in the past, I have often concluded that your moral beliefs appeared to boil down to an abhorrent 'might makes right' view of "God has the biggest stick so people ought to be strongly motivated to do what he says, or else" that you have a tendency to mislabel as 'objective morality'. In light of that, I tend towards assuming that your OP argument means something along the lines of "If people aren't afraid of God's big stick, they won't always find it in their self-interest to act morally."

[seer]

It would be a failure on the part of the State to not enforce the laws, so it would be "absurd" in that sense. In the broader sense, there's nothing logically absurd with someone committing an illegal or immoral action and not being punished for it.

My example of the society is merely a microcosm of a the larger picture. If justice is removed or severely limited I don't see how you could call that system moral, in any real sense.

I don't have a dharmic system. Presumably there's some kind of metaphysical property that functions as some kind of indicator. There are non-theistic dharmic systems. The mechanics are for them to figure out.

Since things like morality, ethics, justice are mind dependent I don't see how they get there. What decides good or evil?

[seer]

Though in my looooooong discussions with you in the past, I have often concluded that your moral beliefs appeared to boil down to an abhorrent 'might makes right' view of "God has the biggest stick so people ought to be strongly motivated to do what he says, or else" that you have a tendency to mislabel as 'objective morality'. In light of that, I tend towards assuming that your OP argument means something along the lines of "If people aren't afraid of God's big stick, they won't always find it in their self-interest to act morally."

Really Star? What do you have but might makes right? Why is rape immoral or wrong besides the fact that the majority imposes its beliefs in this area?

[Diogenes]

My example of the society is merely a microcosm of a the larger picture. If justice is removed or severely limited I don't see how you could call that system moral, in any real sense.

Hence why I said:

n the broader sense, there's nothing logically absurd with someone committing an illegal or immoral action and not being punished for it.

Using your example of murder, there's nothing logically absurd with a murderer getting off on a technicality and being protected from double jeopardy. That doesn't make murder any less immoral/illegal, it just means he's not going to get punished. When that happens, it's easy to get mad at that, but that's an emotional response. You seem to be conflating a psychological absurdity and a logical absurdity.

Since things like morality, ethics, justice are mind dependent I don't see how they get there. What decides good or evil?

I would imagine a non0theistic dharmic practitioner would be a moral realist, so morality would just be a part of the universe as functions. They would disagree that morality, ethics, et al being mind dependent.

[seer]

Using your example of murder, there's nothing logically absurd with a murderer getting off on a technicality and being protected from double jeopardy. That doesn't make murder any less immoral/illegal, it just means he's not going to get punished. When that happens, it's easy to get mad at that, but that's an emotional response. You seem to be conflating a psychological absurdity and a logical absurdity.

Let my ask it this way - would an ethical system that did not punish, or deal with, wrong doing be moral in your opinion?

I would imagine a non0theistic dharmic practitioner would be a moral realist, so morality would just be a part of the universe as functions. They would disagree that morality, ethics, et al being mind dependent.

I don't see how moral truths can be mind independent. That makes no sense to me.

[Diogenes]

Let my ask it this way - would an ethical system that did not punish, or deal with, wrong doing be moral in your opinion?

I don't believe punishment is a necessary part of an ethical system. The purpose of an ethical system is to delineate "right" from "wrong". There's no judicial aspect. to that delineation. It's up to the individual's perception of the wrongness of an action to not do it. If they do act in a wrong manner, that's their psychological burden.

I don't see how moral truths can be mind independent. That makes no sense to me.

Agreed

[seer]

I don't believe punishment is a necessary part of an ethical system. The purpose of an ethical system is to delineate "right" from "wrong". There's no judicial aspect. to that delineation. It's up to the individual's perception of the wrongness of an action to not do it. If they do act in a wrong manner, that's their psychological burden.

So a system that does not include justice can be a moral system in your opinion?

Agreed

[Diogenes]

So a system that does not include justice can be a moral system in your opinion?

I think I already answered this in what you quote, but yes, I do not believe it is logically necessary for an ethical system to include a judicial aspect such that an individual is punished by an external adjudicating force or agent in response to committing a wrong act.

[seer]

I think I already answered this in what you quote, but yes, I do not believe it is logically necessary for an ethical system to include a judicial aspect such that an individual is punished by an external adjudicating force or agent in response to committing a wrong act.

Now that is absurd to me - IMO justice would be a key part of any moral or legal system: How is justice not a moral quality?

JUST'ICE, noun [Latin justitia, from justus, just.]

1. The virtue which consists in giving to every one what is his due; practical conformity to the laws and to principles of rectitude in the dealings of men with each other; honesty; integrity in commerce or mutual intercourse. justice is distributive or commutative. Distributive justice belongs to magistrates or rulers, and consists in distributing to every man that right or equity which the laws and the principles of equity require; or in deciding controversies according to the laws and to principles of equity. Commutative justice consists in fair dealing in trade and mutual intercourse between man and man.

2. Impartiality; equal distribution of right in expressing opinions; fair representation of facts respecting merit or demerit. In criticisms, narrations, history or discourse, it is a duty to do justice to every man, whether friend or foe.

3. Equity; agreeableness to right; as, he proved the justice of his claim. This should, in strictness, be justness.

4. Vindictive retribution; merited punishment. Sooner or later, justice overtakes the criminal.

[Diogenes]

Now that is absurd to me - IMO justice would be a key part of any moral or legal system: How is justice not a moral quality?

4. Vindictive retribution; merited punishment. Sooner or later, justice overtakes the criminal.

The OP is putting "ultimate justice" into the light of "ultimate punishment" and I have responded to the concept of "justice" as the OP considered it.

With the OP, what you're arguing is that for morality to be rational, no wrongs can go unpunished and the only way to ensure that is the existence of punishment in the afterlife, namely though God ("insure" might be appropriate as God is being used as an insurance policy).. There's noting contradictory about God existing to wind up the universe and not caring about punishment in the afterlife. In this instance, God would exist, but, morality would be irrational under what you're trying to argue.

If you wish to equivocate, that's your business.

[Starlight]

What do you have but might makes right?

Everything. I believe in objective morality, unlike you. I see you didn't answer a single one of my questions about your OP.

I don't see how moral truths can be mind independent. That makes no sense to me.

That is because you are a nihilist who believes that it's in our self-interest to do what the guy with the biggest stick says.

But you seem to occasionally give away that you do actually acknowledge some objective moral principles despite your claims not to, e.g.:

IMO justice would be a key part of any moral or legal system: How is justice not a moral quality?

So is justice an objectively existing moral principle or not? (You might want to give that some deep thought because I will start a thread on that topic soon)