The Human Animal...

[Mountain Man]

Okay, so you think there needs to be a God in order for legal obligations to exist.

It all comes back to moral obligation, specifically, what moral obligation does one have to obey the law? If I can figure out how to break the law and avoid the negative consequences, as many have done throughout human history, then why shouldn't I? After all, laws are just arbitrary rules put in place by men.

[Machinist]

It would require, at the very least, that this random universe begat what is called an "emergent property". I cannot articulate this idea very well, but for instance, the Mind would be an "emergent property" of the physical brain. That is usually the goto example used when philosophers discuss emergent properties. It's like when things get so complex and so symmetrical, an entirely different property emerges... a synthesized Whole that is greater than the sums of it's parts. The human brain is a quite complex thing. But where is the Mind? In the Brain? Where? No one knows.

It is said to be an "emergent property" of the universe. The Mind, "emerges" from the brain. (although there is a debate amongst some philosophers that there is no evidence that the Mind originates in the brain...but whatever).

I would say that there needs to be at least some kind of self existent consciousness in some form...whether it's folded up inside this complex universe, kinda like holographically, or it's a God of some sort. And this God is the ultimate eternal consciousness, and therefore would be the ultimate Moral source.

It doesn't have to be the Christian God. That is a different debate altogether.

[seer]

I agree with all of that.

Hence why I say that like distance, morality is objectively real, and like distance, the way an individual might want to measure it at a particularly time can reasonably be quite variable within limits.

Three people's answers to how far away something is might be "500 miles as the bird flies", "1000 km by road", "a day or two to drive", and all three answers might objectively speaking be correct, truthful and accurate in the sense they are reasonable approximations and correspond to something real that a 3rd party could check.

Distance exists. Distance is objectively a real thing. How we talk about it though can be pretty subjective. Same with morality.

But God sure doesn't need to intervene to give us a measure of distance in order for us to use it.

We sure don't start dozens threads whining that human distance is subjective and therefore to have objective distance we need God.

We don't say that because every human culture in history defined distance differently that therefore we need God to exist and need him to be the external distance-giver outside of humanity.

So why do you do that for morality?

It doesn't follow Star. Distance between the moon and the earth would exist even if there were no minds to assign values to that distance. How do moral truths exist without minds?

[Machinist]

Great Metaphor!

[Starlight]

Isn't that kind of the point. How far away is the moon? 238,900 miles? Or 384,400 kilometers? How we measure distance is arbitrary, and tokens we use are subjective. Distance is real, but defined subjectively. Morality is real but also defined subjectively.

I agree with all of that.

Hence why I say that like distance, morality is objectively real, and like distance, the way an individual might want to measure it at a particularly time can reasonably be quite variable within limits.

Three people's answers to how far away something is might be "500 miles as the bird flies", "1000 km by road", "a day or two to drive", and all three answers might objectively speaking be correct, truthful and accurate in the sense they are reasonable approximations and correspond to something real that a 3rd party could check.

Distance exists. Distance is objectively a real thing. How we talk about it though can be pretty subjective. Same with morality.

But God sure doesn't need to intervene to give us a measure of distance in order for us to use it.

We sure don't start dozens threads whining that human distance is subjective and therefore to have objective distance we need God.

We don't say that because every human culture in history defined distance differently that therefore we need God to exist and need him to be the external distance-giver outside of humanity.

So why do you do that for morality?

[Machinist]

Assuming atheism is true, can the random natural forces that created the universe really be a source of moral obligation?-MM

That is a good question.

[Stoic]

Exactly. What obligation or duty do you have to obey human authorities? Assuming atheism is true, can the random natural forces that created the universe really be a source of moral obligation?

(And that's without even getting into the question of which human authorities should you feel obligated to!)

Okay, so you think there needs to be a God in order for legal obligations to exist.

I guess there's really nothing more that we need to talk about.

[Mountain Man]

The same question could be asked about legal obligations too, couldn't it?

Society can pass laws against murder, and can threaten me with death or life imprisonment if I violate those laws, but what really obligates me to follow them?

Is there no such thing as legal obligation? Do you need a God in order to have legal obligations?

Exactly. What obligation or duty do you have to obey human authorities? Assuming atheism is true, can the random natural forces that created the universe really be a source of moral obligation?

(And that's without even getting into the question of which human authorities should you feel obligated to!)

[Stoic]

Society can impose whatever rules it wishes, of course, but what obligates you to follow those rules?

The same question could be asked about legal obligations too, couldn't it?

Society can pass laws against murder, and can threaten me with death or life imprisonment if I violate those laws, but what really obligates me to follow them?

Is there no such thing as legal obligation? Do you need a God in order to have legal obligations?

As for what moral obligation is, Craig provides, I think, the best answer:

[W]e should distinguish between moral values and duties. Values have to do with whether something is good or bad. Duties have to do with whether something is right or wrong. Now you might think at first that this is a distinction without a difference: “good” and “right” mean the same thing, and the same goes for “bad” and “wrong.” But if you think about it, you can see that this isn’t the case. Duty has to do with moral obligation, what you ought or ought not to do. But obviously you’re not morally obligated to do something just because it would be good for you to do it. For example, it would be good for you to become a doctor, but you’re not morally obligated to become a doctor. After all, it would also be good for you to become a firefighter or a homemaker or a diplomat, but you can’t do them all. So there’s a difference between good/bad and right/wrong. Good/bad has to do with something’s worth, while right/wrong has to do with something’s being obligatory.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...ments-for-god/

[C]onsider the nature of moral obligation. What makes certain actions right or wrong for us? What or who imposes moral duties upon us? Why is it that we ought to do certain things and ought not to do other things? Where does this 'ought' come from? Traditionally, our moral obligations were thought to be laid upon us by God's moral commands. But if we deny God's existence, then it is difficult to make sense of moral duty or right and wrong, as Richard Taylor explains,

"A duty is something that is owed . . . . But something can be owed only to some person or persons. There can be no such thing as duty in isolation . . . . The idea of political or legal obligation is clear enough . . . . Similarly, the idea of an obligation higher than this, and referred to as moral obligation, is clear enough, provided reference to some lawmaker higher . . . . than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can . . . be understood as those that are imposed by God. This does give a clear sense to the claim that our moral obligations are more binding upon us than our political obligations . . . . But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of a moral obligation . . . still make sense? . . . . the concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart form the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone."

It follows that moral obligations and right and wrong necessitate God's existence. And certainly we do have such obligations. Speaking recently on a Canadian University campus, I noticed a poster put up by the Sexual Assault & Information Center. It read: "Sexual Assault: No One Has the Right to Abuse a Child, Woman, or Man." Most of us recognize that that statement is evidently true. But the atheist can make no sense of a person's right not to be sexually abused by another. The best answer to the question as to the source of moral obligation is that moral rightness or wrongness consists in agreement or disagreement with the will or commands of a holy, loving God.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...-for-morality/

I have to say that I'm not surprised that Craig thinks that moral obligations could not exist without a God. But that really means no more to me coming from him than it does coming from you.

[Mountain Man]

Now it seems that you are claiming that society cannot impose moral rules upon its members, which to me seems very obviously wrong, even if morality is purely subjective.

Perhaps you could make yourself more clear. Maybe it's the word "obligation" that means something different to each of us.

Society can impose whatever rules it wishes, of course, but what obligates you to follow those rules?

As for what moral obligation is, Craig provides, I think, the best answer:

[W]e should distinguish between moral values and duties. Values have to do with whether something is good or bad. Duties have to do with whether something is right or wrong. Now you might think at first that this is a distinction without a difference: “good” and “right” mean the same thing, and the same goes for “bad” and “wrong.” But if you think about it, you can see that this isn’t the case. Duty has to do with moral obligation, what you ought or ought not to do. But obviously you’re not morally obligated to do something just because it would be good for you to do it. For example, it would be good for you to become a doctor, but you’re not morally obligated to become a doctor. After all, it would also be good for you to become a firefighter or a homemaker or a diplomat, but you can’t do them all. So there’s a difference between good/bad and right/wrong. Good/bad has to do with something’s worth, while right/wrong has to do with something’s being obligatory.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...ments-for-god/

[C]onsider the nature of moral obligation. What makes certain actions right or wrong for us? What or who imposes moral duties upon us? Why is it that we ought to do certain things and ought not to do other things? Where does this 'ought' come from? Traditionally, our moral obligations were thought to be laid upon us by God's moral commands. But if we deny God's existence, then it is difficult to make sense of moral duty or right and wrong, as Richard Taylor explains,

"A duty is something that is owed . . . . But something can be owed only to some person or persons. There can be no such thing as duty in isolation . . . . The idea of political or legal obligation is clear enough . . . . Similarly, the idea of an obligation higher than this, and referred to as moral obligation, is clear enough, provided reference to some lawmaker higher . . . . than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can . . . be understood as those that are imposed by God. This does give a clear sense to the claim that our moral obligations are more binding upon us than our political obligations . . . . But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of a moral obligation . . . still make sense? . . . . the concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart form the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone."

It follows that moral obligations and right and wrong necessitate God's existence. And certainly we do have such obligations. Speaking recently on a Canadian University campus, I noticed a poster put up by the Sexual Assault & Information Center. It read: "Sexual Assault: No One Has the Right to Abuse a Child, Woman, or Man." Most of us recognize that that statement is evidently true. But the atheist can make no sense of a person's right not to be sexually abused by another. The best answer to the question as to the source of moral obligation is that moral rightness or wrongness consists in agreement or disagreement with the will or commands of a holy, loving God.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...-for-morality/

[Stoic]

I never said that morality can't exist without a God. Indeed, I would be willing, for the sake of argument, to accept the premise that objective morality exists as a brute fact of nature, like the laws of physics. What I actually said is that moral obligation can not exist without a supreme moral lawgiver, who I happen to believe is God, because what moral obligation could possibly exist in a universe that is governed entirely by random natural forces? Other people might expect you to act a certain way -- for instance, if you had an excess of something they needed, they would expect you to share -- but what if you act otherwise? In an atheistic universe, there can be no rule that says you ought to act one way as opposed to another.

For example, suppose you saw an atheist friend of yours stealing money. You scold him saying, "Dude! Stealing is objectively immoral!" He smiles and says, "Yes, it is objectively immoral, but since I have no obligation to only do what is objectively moral, I steal with a clear conscience."

Now it seems that you are claiming that society cannot impose moral rules upon its members, which to me seems very obviously wrong, even if morality is purely subjective.

Perhaps you could make yourself more clear. Maybe it's the word "obligation" that means something different to each of us.

[seer]

No, it is not innate. Children need to be taught to share, to tell the truth, to cooperate with others, etc.

How true. I have three young grand children living in my house.

[Mountain Man]

No. The instinct is innate for a social species such as us to socialize and group together as communities – or tribes. This is true of the human animal as much as for our primate cousins. Rules of the community are based upon the evolution of behavior to survive as cooperative, altruistic social creatures – something we share with other intelligent social animals to a lesser extent.

No, it is not innate. Children need to be taught to share, to tell the truth, to cooperate with others, etc.

But even if you want to reject this premise, we can all think of times in our lives when our first inclination is to put our own interests ahead of others. The question is, what obligation do we have to reject that inclination?

[eider]

Your answer assumes that one ought to always do what is best for one's community, but on what basis do you make that assumption? I can think of any number of scenarios where it would be in one's own best interests to act in a way that is not best for their community. And why shouldn't they? What obligation do they have to do otherwise?

Would you like to give an example.?

[Mountain Man]

Similarly, when I run into someone who thinks that morality couldn't exist without a God...

I never said that morality can't exist without a God. Indeed, I would be willing, for the sake of argument, to accept the premise that objective morality exists as a brute fact of nature, like the laws of physics. What I actually said is that moral obligation can not exist without a supreme moral lawgiver, who I happen to believe is God, because what moral obligation could possibly exist in a universe that is governed entirely by random natural forces? Other people might expect you to act a certain way -- for instance, if you had an excess of something they needed, they would expect you to share -- but what if you act otherwise? In an atheistic universe, there can be no rule that says you ought to act one way as opposed to another.

For example, suppose you saw an atheist friend of yours stealing money. You scold him saying, "Dude! Stealing is objectively immoral!" He smiles and says, "Yes, it is objectively immoral, but since I have no obligation to only do what is objectively moral, I steal with a clear conscience."