|
Post by Caroline on Feb 20, 2017 12:34:02 GMT -5
- If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
- Objective moral values and duties do exist.
- Therefore, God exists.
The argument is NOT can we be good without belief in God, but rather is there any foundation for moral values and duties if God does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Feb 20, 2017 19:50:56 GMT -5
Hi!
Assertion 1 and 2 both have serious problems. The first is a textbook example of begging the question; you start by defining morality as something that cannot exist without God. But why should one take that as given? Logic alone has plenty of rationale for morality; see, for example, Kant and those influenced by him. (Ultra-simplistic version: we can define morality as that which would thrive if everyone were to do it.)
The second also takes as given the fact that objective morality exists. There's plenty of dispute about that from other quarters.
I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, but the steps toward it in this argument are enormously flawed.
|
|
|
Post by Caroline on Feb 21, 2017 7:48:02 GMT -5
It’s not begging the question because premise (1) does not assume the conclusion - “God exists.” The argument is sound but the premises need to be supported for the argument to be convincing, which I will attempt to do.
If there is no God, the human species arose by undirected chance along with the other animal species. On what basis then do we possess any inherent moral worth, any more than other animals? We don’t charge ants or apes with moral infractions - what obligates us to do good to others and avoid evil, and what is the standard?
The ‘whatever contributes to human flourishing/thriving’ argument as a foundation for objective morality cannot be sustained. First of all, and again, if we exist by happenstance, what obligates us to care whether or not humanity thrives? If an individual or people group believes they will thrive more by exterminating those among them they determine are weak and conquering and subduing those around them they believe will hinder their preferred lifestyle, who’s to tell them that’s wrong?
Secondly, asserting that it’s the overall or global flourishing that is in view, as some do, is suggesting that there is some way we with our limited knowledge and foresight can know or agree on what that flourishing would look like and what would best contribute to it.
Regarding the second premise, I disagree with your contention that, “there’s plenty of dispute about that.” There are some who will bite the bullet and claim that raping little children is not objectively wrong, but most when challenged with the obvious ramifications of their denial of premise (2) will find that they actually do believe it.
|
|
joe
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by joe on Feb 21, 2017 20:44:46 GMT -5
What basis do we have moral worth beyond other animals? The basis that we can reason, which is the source of morality.
What obligates us to care whether humanity thrives? You misunderstand; I'm not talking about any individual. This is not a matter of tribal allegiances, but a matter of overarching morality. Kant's implication was that the extermination of a competing tribe was immoral, because if everyone did it we would all die. The idea is that immoral behaviors cannot survive if practiced by everyone; theft, for example, would cease to exist if everyone did it, because it would invalidate the concept of property and hence the concept of theft.
Related, it's not a question of global flourishing, or really flourishing at all. It's a question of whether an idea can survive at all.
Finally, your last paragraph misrepresents the issue. Plenty believe that there are subjective morals but not objective ones. I disagree with them, but if you're going to assert that objective morals exist, you need to back it up.
|
|
|
Post by Caroline on Feb 22, 2017 15:05:40 GMT -5
Yes, I did misunderstand your point about thriving. So, was Kant saying that if every man went around raping little children that would invalidate the concept of personal value and hence the concept of rape? And rape would cease to be immoral? I’ve not read Kant and I realize you’re giving me just a thumbnail sketch of his beliefs, so I’m just trying to understand. Did he think that behaviors that can’t survive if practiced by everyone are those that are immoral and behaviors that would survive if everyone practiced them are those that are moral?
So according to your theft example, if everyone took things that didn’t belong to them, theft would not be an immoral act but instead simply partaking of communal property. Is that right? So theft would no longer be theft if everyone did it and that’s how we determine its immorality. What about something like slavery? If slavery was universally practiced you’re obviously going to have two major groups of people - the slaves and the slaveowners. I’m sure the slaveowners would believe that slavery is not immoral if everyone’s doing it, but what about the slaves? I don’t believe Kant’s method of determining morality, as I understand it, is any more reliable than the human flourishing model.
But to your point about the basis of our moral worth being our identity as reasoning creatures and reason as the source of morality, that makes sense to us because we seem to naturally apprehend our own inherent worth and, usually, the inherent value of others, as well as apprehending what’s right and wrong. But objectively speaking, if we are only higher primates existing because of an undirected process of randomness and natural selection, why should we think that we have any more inherent worth than other creatures without our reasoning capabilities but perhaps with superior physical capabilities?
And if we were not created with these reasoning capabilities but rather evolved in a process directed only at survival, how can we even trust our reason? If we evolved our reasoning capabilities according to what best assured survival, why should we believe our reason can be depended on to inform us on what is truly right and wrong and not simply what will help us survive? And if morality is only that which will ensure our survival, that again becomes an unworkable basis for a number of reasons, including the largely indeterminate concept of survival. Do we mean humanity survives at some minimum level or continues to grow exponentially? Or do we mean that the numbers aren’t as important as the quality of life that is generally experienced?
I have more to say and ask about this view, but I’ll wait until you respond again to give you a chance to confirm or correct my understanding.
Sorry…a lot of questions in this post. I expect you’ll need more time to address them. Let me finish with YOUR last paragraph. I don’t see in what way I misrepresented the issue. And I understand your statement that, “Plenty believe that there are subjective morals but not objective ones” as claiming that plenty would say raping little children is not objectively wrong. Is that what you’re saying?
|
|
joe
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by joe on Mar 3, 2017 19:28:04 GMT -5
As you can probably tell from previous comments I don't have a lot of time here, but I didn't do a good job of communicating this idea of Kantian morality. The idea is that the very concept of rape would be meaningless -- it's not sustainable. And from that we can deduce that it is immoral.
Other examples: theft loses meaning if everyone steals, because the concept of property disappears. Hence immoral. Murder loses meaning if everyone murders, because no one is left alive to define it. Hence immoral.
To be clear again, I'm not claiming this as my personal philosophy or anything. But claiming that the concept of morality can't come from anywhere but God is demonstrably false. Claiming it can't come from anywhere but a Judeo-Christian God is absurd.
|
|
|
Post by Caroline on Mar 3, 2017 20:57:57 GMT -5
I’m not claiming that “the concept of morality can’t come from anywhere but God,” if what you’re referring to is how one comes to apprehend moral truths. What I am claiming is that morality cannot be objective apart from a standard outside of ourselves. And if we are in any way obligated to do right and avoid wrong, there must be someone to whom we are obligated.
Where does this “overarching morality,” as you called it, come from that “obligates us to care” about humanity?
|
|