Morality or Obedience?

[Doug Shaver]

if you start with the premise that an ultimate moral law giver does not exist then every act becomes permissible

Yes, if ethics is reduced to some version of divine command theory.

It's merely a question of pragmatism at that point.

Not necessarily. Ethics is a question of values. To call something right or wrong is to make a value judgment, and we may or may not put our highest value on pragmatic considerations.

Reason in and of itself does not -- in fact can not -- lead to morality.

[seer]

Yes, if ethics is reduced to some version of divine command theory.

Nonsense, divine command theory does not necessarily lead to arbitrary ethics, in the case of the God of the bible, just the opposite.

[Sparko]

You can only say that because you do not have kids. Babies are individuals from birth. If that does not reveal a mind then no one has a mind.

I guess I mean a rational mind in that they have no language yet. They certainly have a personality.

My point to Jimmy is that many parts of a human develop over time, that doesn't mean that God didn't "give" them to us.

[Mountain Man]

Seriously? You have to respond to a three sentence post by addressing each sentence individually?

Regarding your conclusion that "It would follow that a rational person would want to avoid behaviors that have [consequences that no rational person would wish to experience]," that's begging the question, because it also follows that a rational person would simply seek to avoid those consequences while engaging in whatever behavior happened to please them or was the most pragmatic at the moment. Someone like Hillary Clinton, for example, has accumulated so much wealth and power that she can do pretty much whatever she wants without ever having to worry about the consequences, and if a Supreme Judge does not exist then why shouldn't she? For that matter, even a petty criminal on the streets can operate outside the law if he's sufficiently careful, and why not? This is the question that atheists find impossible to answer because pragmatism lends itself to a whole range of possibilities.

And by "divine command theory", I assume you mean the premise that God's moral commands can be arbitrary, but that's not a correct understanding. Rather, God's moral commands are limited, in a sense, by his character and nature, which is to say, broadly speaking, that anything consistent with the character and nature of God is moral by definition, and everything else is immoral by definition, which is why the Christian is well positioned to answer the question "Why ought I behave morally?" Answer: Because it is consistent with the character and nature of our Supreme Lawgiver.

[seer]

And by "divine command theory", I assume you mean the premise that God's moral commands can be arbitrary, but that's not a correct understanding. Rather, God's moral commands are limited, in a sense, by his character and nature, which is to say, broadly speaking, that anything consistent with the character and nature of God is moral by definition, and everything else is immoral by definition, which is why the Christian is well positioned to answer the question "Why ought I behave morally?" Answer: Because it is consistent with the character and nature of our Supreme Lawgiver.

Exactly, and God's moral character is immutable... Not arbitrary...

[Doug Shaver]

Nonsense, divine command theory does not necessarily lead to arbitrary ethics

I didn't say it does. The point I was trying to make was that your argument, that ethics must be arbitrary if there is no ultimate authority, only works on the presupposition that the ultimate authority must be God.

[JimL]

Exactly, and God's moral character is immutable... Not arbitrary...

If you define gods moral character as immutable, how would you define human morality? Amoral?

[Doug Shaver]

You have to respond to a three sentence post by addressing each sentence individually?

Yes. I had three points to make, and each point addressed only one sentence in the post to which I was responding.

Regarding your conclusion that "It would follow that a rational person would want to avoid behaviors that have [consequences that no rational person would wish to experience]," that's begging the question, because it also follows that a rational person would simply seek to avoid those consequences while engaging in whatever behavior happened to please them or was the most pragmatic at the moment.

Whatever fallacy my conclusion might contain, if the conclusion entails an absurdity, then question-begging is not the fallacy.

As for the alleged absurdity . . . if, while I am engaging in behavior that pleases me or is pragmatic at the moment and that you regard as immoral, it's up to you to show me why it is immoral notwithstanding that it has no consequences that a rational person should wish to avoid.

Someone like Hillary Clinton, for example, has accumulated so much wealth and power that she can do pretty much whatever she wants without ever having to worry about the consequences

I don't accept your supposition that she need not concern herself with the consequences of her behavior. Whether she herself worries about them is irrelevant to my moral assessment of her character. If she believes that because of her wealth, she can ignore those consequences, then she is not being rational.

even a petty criminal on the streets can operate outside the law if he's sufficiently careful, and why not?

It is not rational, when deciding whether to do or not do something, to consider no consequences other than the likelihood of being prosecuted by whatever legal system one is living under.

And by "divine command theory", I assume you mean the premise that God's moral commands can be arbitrary

You assume incorrectly.

the Christian is well positioned to answer the question "Why ought I behave morally?" Answer: Because it is consistent with the character and nature of our Supreme Lawgiver.

I'm not interested in finding fault with what Christians say is the basis of their morality. I am interested in disputing the assertion that there cannot be any other basis.

[seer]

I didn't say it does. The point I was trying to make was that your argument, that ethics must be arbitrary if there is no ultimate authority, only works on the presupposition that the ultimate authority must be God.

Well do you have another ultimate authority?

[Mountain Man]

Yes. I had three points to make, and each point addressed only one sentence in the post to which I was responding.


Whatever fallacy my conclusion might contain, if the conclusion entails an absurdity, then question-begging is not the fallacy.

As for the alleged absurdity . . . if, while I am engaging in behavior that pleases me or is pragmatic at the moment and that you regard as immoral, it's up to you to show me why it is immoral notwithstanding that it has no consequences that a rational person should wish to avoid.


I don't accept your supposition that she need not concern herself with the consequences of her behavior. Whether she herself worries about them is irrelevant to my moral assessment of her character. If she believes that because of her wealth, she can ignore those consequences, then she is not being rational.


It is not rational, when deciding whether to do or not do something, to consider no consequences other than the likelihood of being prosecuted by whatever legal system one is living under.


You assume incorrectly.


I'm not interested in finding fault with what Christians say is the basis of their morality. I am interested in disputing the assertion that there cannot be any other basis.

Seriously, Doug? If you're going to play this game where you address an argument sentence by sentence (and in some cases you don't even bother to address a complete sentence) rather than addressing the argument as a whole then I don't have the patience for it, so this will probably be my last response.

But it doesn't matter, I suppose, because you've contradicted yourself. First you say that rational people should "want to avoid behaviors that have [consequences that no rational person would wish to experience]," but when I point out that rational people can simply figure out how to avoid the consequences instead if the behavior is otherwise desirable or pragmatic, you say that whether or not one worries about the consequences is suddenly irrelevant despite this being a central pillar of your argument.

Then you attempt to move the goalposts to how someone's actions might be perceived by others, but what if a rational person simply doesn't care what other people think? You might say, It doesn't matter what they think; if you think it's immoral then you ought to do something! Which begs the question: If atheism is true then why ought I force my own sense of morality on someone else? The reverse question is similarly sticky for the atheist: Why ought they not force their sense of morality on me?

[Doug Shaver]

Well do you have another ultimate authority?

No, but I'm not the one claiming that there must be an ultimate authority. If you say there is one, and it must be God, then you have a divine command theory.

[Doug Shaver]

Seriously, Doug? If you're going to play this game where you address an argument sentence by sentence (and in some cases you don't even bother to address a complete sentence) rather than addressing the argument as a whole then I don't have the patience for it, so this will probably be my last response.

But it doesn't matter, I suppose, because you've contradicted yourself. First you say that rational people should "want to avoid behaviors that have [consequences that no rational person would wish to experience]," but when I point out that rational people can simply figure out how to avoid the consequences instead if the behavior is otherwise desirable or pragmatic, you say that whether or not one worries about the consequences is suddenly irrelevant despite this being a central pillar of your argument.

Then you attempt to move the goalposts to how someone's actions might be perceived by others, but what if a rational person simply doesn't care what other people think? You might say, It doesn't matter what they think; if you think it's immoral then you ought to do something! Which begs the question: If atheism is true then why ought I force my own sense of morality on someone else? The reverse question is similarly sticky for the atheist: Why ought they not force their sense of morality on me?

So, what you want me to do is always quote your entire post, even if I am responding to only one statement in that post?

[seer]

No, but I'm not the one claiming that there must be an ultimate authority. If you say there is one, and it must be God, then you have a divine command theory.

Of course I hold to the divine command theory, except God's moral law is not arbitrary - as some seem to suggest.

[JimL]

Of course I hold to the divine command theory, except God's moral law is not arbitrary - as some seem to suggest.

How do you know it's not arbitrary, seer?

[seer]

How do you know it's not arbitrary, seer?

Well Jim, I go by Revelation, that God can not change, that He can not lie, that by nature He is loving, just, righteous, and good.