Morality or Obedience?

[element771]

If there is a moral system to be found which best serves the interests of human society, then it would obviously be true that there is a best moral system.

Your statement is full of value judgments.

Have you not read anything by David Hume on the is/ought problem?

[element771]

Whether atheism or theism is true, our moral frameworks are grounded in what we value.

There are no laws without a law giver.

Have you read anything by David Hume or Michael Ruse on this?

There are plenty of atheist philosophers who may be able to illustrate what we are saying better than us...or you may trust them more. In either event, this is not a theistic argument or an argument that only theists make.

[Tassman]

There are no laws without a law giver.

In my view God is the source for universal ethics, no such source exists for the atheist.

But, despite many requests, you can never tell us what these universal ethics consist of except, if pushed, vague references to the Golden Rule.

[Starlight]

Have you not read anything by David Hume on the is/ought problem?

Hume's is/ought observation was a particularly worthwhile one.

However, inserting values solves the problem.
e.g. I am considering taking some action, X, or its opposite, not-X.
1. I value Y.
2. Given my beliefs about the state of the world, I believe that taking action X would preserve / increase Y, and I believe that taking action not-X would destroy / diminish Y.
Conclusion: Therefore, as a rational being, I ought to take action X, in rational furtherance of my value Y.


Hume noted, correctly, that premise 2 above (the state of the world) doesn't get you to the conclusion (what you ought to do). However, adding premise 1, values, does get you to the conclusion.

So as soon as JimL says he values humanity or human society or human happiness or human well-being etc, that logically generates a boat-load of "ought" statements about how he ought to rationally behave in furtherance of those values.

[carpedm9587]

I think so, but I would say rather that happiness is human societies ultimite metric for morality, not my own, or any individuals metric. Like I said previously, I don't think that morality makes any sense if you live alone on an island.

We definitely have a different view of how framing a moral code works. I would see "happiness" as only one of the things we come to value, and not the dominant one at that.

[carpedm9587]

There are no laws without a law giver.

We were discussing morality, not law. That being said, they have significant similarities. Both spring from a sentient mind - and since I (and you) have one of those, we are the sentient minds that derive our morality.

Have you read anything by David Hume or Michael Ruse on this?

The former, yes - but years (decades, actually) ago. The latter, no.

There are plenty of atheist philosophers who may be able to illustrate what we are saying better than us...or you may trust them more. In either event, this is not a theistic argument or an argument that only theists make.

I did not think it was, Element. As Jim shows, there are atheists looking to frame morality in terms of universals and absolutes. That way of thinking has been deeply ingrained into us for millenia by the various religions of the world. I have only encountered a few intrepid atheist sould willing to let go of that way of thinking and see it for what it is: an argument without substance. Indeed, even WITH a god, it seems to me that morality is rooted in the subjective and is highly individual, though it does "trickle up" to the collective and then the collective "feeds back" to the individual.

[carpedm9587]

Hume's is/ought observation was a particularly worthwhile one.

However, inserting values solves the problem.
e.g. I am considering taking some action, X, or its opposite, not-X.
1. I value Y.
2. Given my beliefs about the state of the world, I believe that taking action X would preserve / increase Y, and I believe that taking action not-X would destroy / diminish Y.
Conclusion: Therefore, as a rational being, I ought to take action X, in rational furtherance of my value Y.


Hume noted, correctly, that premise 2 above (the state of the world) doesn't get you to the conclusion (what you ought to do). However, adding premise 1, values, does get you to the conclusion.

So as soon as JimL says he values humanity or human society or human happiness or human well-being etc, that logically generates a boat-load of "ought" statements about how he ought to rationally behave in furtherance of those values.

Essentially what I have been trying to convey for a while now. Nicely done.

[seer]

Can you clarify what you mean by these words? In what ways it is universal? Is Satan's law also universal? In what way do you mean 'binding'? That God has a big stick he will hit people with at some point (hell)? Although it doesn't seem to be at all binding in the sense that sinners skate free cos Jesus so God's law is apparently never enforced on us.

Satan is not a universal omnipotent being. God is. And yes, God has arranged clemency and reclamation for those who repent of their wicked ways. And for those who don't - they will be segregated from civil society, we call that hell... But those who repent will still have to live by God's law.

I have named several already in this thread.

OK, you said:

an action is moral or immoral to the extent that it preserves/increases or destroys/decrease those things that humanity values", is in fact a universally applicable morality

But that is no more than prattle Star. Meaningless. Not all humanity values the same things, or if they do, going about fulfilling those desires are often quite different. Greed, lust, dominance, war are just as much a part of this picture as anything else. Second, why is preserving humanity in the first pace a moral good? See Star, you are not saying anything new, men largely have understood the Golden Rule for centuries the problem is and has been and will be getting men to follow it. You have added nothing.

[seer]

But, despite many requests, you can never tell us what these universal ethics consist of except, if pushed, vague references to the Golden Rule.

That is utterly false Tass, I gave you a list awhile back. Either you are getting senile or you are being dishonest.

[Sparko]

Well if you're unable to comprehend the argument Sparko, and you'd rather quibble over the use of terms, then that's your problem, and you're not really interested..

Jim you can't have a rational debate about objective truth when you are using subjective definitions.

[element771]

Hume's is/ought observation was a particularly worthwhile one.

However, inserting values solves the problem.
e.g. I am considering taking some action, X, or its opposite, not-X.
1. I value Y.
2. Given my beliefs about the state of the world, I believe that taking action X would preserve / increase Y, and I believe that taking action not-X would destroy / diminish Y.
Conclusion: Therefore, as a rational being, I ought to take action X, in rational furtherance of my value Y.


Hume noted, correctly, that premise 2 above (the state of the world) doesn't get you to the conclusion (what you ought to do). However, adding premise 1, values, does get you to the conclusion.

So as soon as JimL says he values humanity or human society or human happiness or human well-being etc, that logically generates a boat-load of "ought" statements about how he ought to rationally behave in furtherance of those values.

That is exactly the point. You value X, so you ought to do Y. Valuing X is not an "is" statement (i.e. it is not a fact).

For example...

1. I value killing people for money.

2. Therefore, as a rational being, I ought to kill people for money because it furthers my values.

[element771]

Essentially what I have been trying to convey for a while now. Nicely done.

But that says that morals are just whatever you value and are therefore not objective.

[element771]

I did not think it was, Element. As Jim shows, there are atheists looking to frame morality in terms of universals and absolutes. That way of thinking has been deeply ingrained into us for millenia by the various religions of the world. I have only encountered a few intrepid atheist sould willing to let go of that way of thinking and see it for what it is: an argument without substance. Indeed, even WITH a god, it seems to me that morality is rooted in the subjective and is highly individual, though it does "trickle up" to the collective and then the collective "feeds back" to the individual.

I guess we just have to disagree.

I don't think the position is a result of religions around the world thinking it should be, it is a a result of logical argument.

I don't want you to think that I am saying that atheists cannot have a moral framework or that they cannot be moral individuals. But atheists determining their own moral framework is, by definition, subjective and not objective. Something objective cannot be framed by individuals or society...something objective is brute fact.

[JimL]

I would not live by all the morals I do today, most perhaps...

You are the reason we created gods seer.

[JimL]

Jim you can't have a rational debate about objective truth when you are using subjective definitions.

There are objective effects Sparko, and the effects of human behavior are real effects, and thus are objective, even if the moral laws being followed are not objective existing realities themselves.