Morality is not and does not need to be bounded by or ingrained in religion

Plaffelvohfen

Peterson wants an absolutely objective morality, that's why he says what he says... Of course people have morality without religion, but it's neither absolute nor objective...

Dee

Morality as can be seen is ever changing and evolves with societies and societal changes , the Christians  who say morality is impossible without god are amusing as the god of Christianity murders , maims and destroys 20 million of his creations ( low estimate) and Satan kills 10 as god asked him to do , yet god is the source of moral perfection and Satan is the bad guy ....

Most religious anyway totally ignore what the Bible actually requests of them and pick and choose the parts that suit their particular lifestyle choices,  an example would be the hilarious way most American Christians will actually argue that Jesus would agree with carrying a gun , denying universal health care and denying social welfare people reimagine their  gods as they are collectively. In the U S at the moment it seems non religious individuals are the ones who actually state that there should be decent universal health care , welfare and agree Jesus would certainly be against carrying a gun yet the Atheists are ones claimed to be immoral , hows that for a turnabout? 

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

What is Petersen’s reasoning  regarding objective morality how does he make a case for it?

TKDB

Being religious is voluntary.

Just as being non religious, is voluntary.

Just as a human, being moral, or immoral, is voluntary as well.

Humans mindfully frame themselves, by their individual choices, whether religion has been ingrained into their lives or not.

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee

His reasoning is long and tortuous but in the end, it can be somewhat summed up as this:  For morality to be truly objective we need a god otherwise it can only be subjective...

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

Thank you for sparing me he does go on a bit at times , his contention is absurd to say the least  

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee

To be honest, he's a very good debater, he's very good with words and is really knowledgeable, but he often use his very own definitions of certain terms without informing his audience and when cornered about it he goes into linguistic and philosophical gymnastics, he's a professional athlete in this regard... I sometime find myself agreeing with him on some issues, but I still find him to be, disingenuous most of the time...

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

Yes in fairness I’ve seen him recently debating with Sam Harris and intellectually he’s no slouch and would hold his own in most company , you’re assessment is spot on as that’s exactly the tactics he used with Harris , thanks you for your piece 

ZeusAres42

I'm sure I could find something I could agree with on with Peterson if I didn't actually almost fall asleep after listening to him spending forever to try and make his point at times.

AlofRI

Religious morality, at this time, is being made a joke by those evangelicals, and others, that support thee least moral POTUS, probably, of all time. I can't imagine a person calling themselves "moral", a supporter of morality, whether GODS morality or any other, while voting for this vile individual. I think they should think about it. Just what IS morality, and do you see ANY of it in the White House??

AlofRI

Morality is doing what's right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what's right. I don't know who said that but it is  so often right.

I DO know who said this: "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."  H.G. Wells

MayCaesar

Peterson likes to stretch the definition of "religion" pretty far, so I would take his position on this with a grain of salt.

Aside from that, a common argument among a lot of people with liberal views is the following: morality should have a solid, immovable, unquestionable source in order for freedom in the society to be possible. They will often point out at communist regimes that denounced the concept of "god" and say that it is that that allowed them to justify suppression of freedoms and violation of basic human rights: people no longer feared god, so their behavior became unhinged.

I have three main issues with this argument.

1. Fearing "god" does not compel one to any particular set of behaviors, as what that "god" wants one to do is somewhat subjective. The notion of god did not prevent crusaders from slaughtering millions, and does not prevent modern Islamic leaders from turning half of their people into sexual slaves.

2. Religion is also not necessary for the society to be freedom-loving and mutually respectful. The most peaceful and prosperous nations on Earth, such as Japan, Switzerland or Norway, tend to be heavily secular, and even the US, where religion is a fairly big deal, has long been done with it heavily influencing enacted policies.

3. The argument assumes that, in the lack of certain centralised authority, there will be absolute moral chaos. But morals are dictated by practical considerations as much, if not more, than by philosophical ones. Even in the lack of centralised authority, certain general moral stances, such as "It is good to treat others well", are going to be naturally established: we all have to live in one society, and there are certain limitations imposed on our mainstream morals by that fact.

If we really consider where morals come from and why they are needed, we will see that religion is merely one possible source of morals, not special in any regard. People can see it as more authoritative than most other sources, but such a view does not have objective basis behind it, and people can be convinced just as well to see any other source as most authoritative.
When Soviet Union collapsed and the ideas of freedoms and liberties were central in the Russian philosophy for several years, those ideas did not come from religion or any other totalitarian ideology. Those ideas came from the simple fact that nations that valued these principles did really well, and other nations did really poorly. It was a purely practical consideration, and no god's word can ever be more authoritative, than the individual desire to live a happy life.

billbatard

morality existed long before relgion is was an evolutinary survival tool https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/morality_evolved_first_long_before_religion/

BrandyKnight

    

Religious morality, at this time, is being made a joke by those evangelicals, and others, that support thee least moral POTUS, probably, of all time. I can't imagine a person calling themselves "moral", a supporter of morality, whether GODS morality or any other, while voting for this vile individual. I think they should think about it. Just what IS morality, and do you see ANY of it in the White House??

@AlofRI ;

 Morals and government have no business together. Morals are individual and based on a person's raising, their tribe, their religion or any number of other personal standards. While you can question someone else's morals, you can only accuse them of immorality using your own personal beliefs. We don't all share the same. For instance, there are some people who believe that it is immoral to personally judge others, there fore you would be morally corrupt in their eyes. And yes, there are morals in the White House. Every person has their own belief as to what is wrong and what is right. 

Dee

@BrandyKnight

You say .......

Religious morality, at this time, is being made a joke by those evangelicals, and others, that support thee least moral POTUS, probably, of all time. I can't imagine a person calling themselves "moral", a supporter of morality, whether GODS morality or any other, while voting for this vile individual.

My reply .....Yet his supporters mostly identify themselves as all American Christians and see Trump as their savior and would see the other side as deeply immoral unpatriotic Americans

MayCaesar

@Dee

Trump has his own set of morals, and you have your own set of morals. You assume that your morals are superior; he assumes that his morals are superior. There is no higher moral ground here, as morals are inherently subjective, religious or not.

Every person who voted for Trump had their own morals, and acted according to them. You may think that there is absolutely no consistent moral system that would allow one to vote for Trump, but that is because your vision is limited by your own set of morals. You should expand your vision and realise that it is just your vision and nothing more.

It seems to be that your hatred towards the guy clouds your judgement. Why do you assume that your morals are superior, say, to Lauren Southern's (a big Trump supporter) morals? What makes one's morals superior to someone else's morals?

Morals are not equivalent, and some moral sets obviously lead to worse societal consequences than some other moral sets. But that does not make those moral sets immoral, nor does it make them inferior. They would be inferior under the assumption that "quality" of a moral set must be judged according to the consequences it leads to, but that assumption itself is inherently subjective.

Dee

@MayCaesar

You say ......
Trump has his own set of morals, and you have your own set of morals. You assume that your morals are superior;


My reply ..... I certainly don’t and I’ve never stated that 

You say ......he assumes that his morals are superior. There is no higher moral ground here, as morals are inherently subjective, religious or not.

My reply .....I agree

You say ......Every person who voted for Trump had their own morals, and acted according to them. You may think that there is absolutely no consistent moral system that would allow one to vote for Trump, but that is because your vision is limited by your own set of morals.

My reply .....I stated exactly my understanding of what sort of people are supporters of Trump mostly as in patriotic Christians is this incorrect? 

You say ......You should expand your vision and realise that it is just your vision and nothing more.

My reply .....I honestly do not comprehend this unwarranted attack you’re making , I replied honestly to Brandy who calls Trump deeply immoral and thus by implication anyone who voted for him , I made no such charge

You say ......It seems to be that your hatred towards the guy clouds your judgement.

My reply ......Where am I saying I hate him?

You say .....Why do you assume that your morals are superior, say, to Lauren Southern's (a big Trump supporter) morals? What makes one's morals superior to someone else's morals?

My reply ......I never said I was superior to anyone , wow! you really have it in for me for some reason why’s that?

You say ......Morals are not equivalent, and some moral sets obviously lead to worse societal consequences than some other moral sets. But that does not make those moral sets immoral, nor does it make them inferior. They would be inferior under the assumption that "quality" of a moral set must be judged according to the consequences it leads to, but that assumption itself is inherently subjective.

My reply .....Listen I will leave it there , I don’t want to offend you as I’m sick and tired of mostly aggressive Americans constantly attacking me on here and claiming I said things I didn’t say . 

Dee

@TKDB

You say .....Being religious is voluntary

My reply ......It’s not , children are introduced to religion at mostly a very early stage there is nothing voluntary about it 

MayCaesar

@Dee

Oh, my deep apologies. I was confused by your reply style and read the "You say..." part as something you meant to say.

I was not planning to make a personal attack, just making an argument. But I see now that my argument was really intended for @BrandyKnight.

Dee

@MayCaesar

It’s all good and all forgotten now , a simple mistake and I’ve made them myself , have a good day/evening 

ethang5

@ZeusAres42

Morality is not and does not need to be bounded by or ingrained in religion........... to be what?

Dispute all the atheist echo's in here, there is a question they can never answer.

Without a standard, what makes any morality better than another?

Christians are not saying you need God to have a morality. Even hyenas have a morality. 

Christians say you need a standard in order to have an objective morality. A subjective morality has no reason it ought be followed.

Why can't atheists see this simple truth? So your morality says killing an unborn child is moral. Abdul's morality says the opposite. Who is moral?

The hypocritical thing is, atheist can see the need for a standard in everything except morality. We have a standard for hours, GMT. A standard for location, GPS. A standard for distance, miles. A standard for time, light years. A standard for energy, for light, even for volume.

But for morality, the atheist suddenly cannot see the need, the value, of an objective standard.

"God isn't that standard" they will cry. Never seeing it doesn't matter. No matter whether we settle on inches, feet, yards, meters, or miles, we have to settle on something if we are going to talk to each other about distance.

First admit that we need a standard. Forget your fear and hatred of God. Morality needs a standard, or we are just a bunch of idiots each claiming his morality is better than the other.

BrandyKnight

@Dee  Sorry. That was not me.  

 @MayCaesar ; What were you directing to me?  

I think you both have me confused with @AlofRI

Dee

@BrandyKnight

Brandy now it’s my turn to apologise , I never really paid attention to the AL logo and honestly wondered what had happened as in out last debate after we cleared up some misunderstandings I enjoyed our further exchanges , please accept my sincere apologies and I hope  me and you have some more what for me anyway were  enjoyable exchanges   @MayCaesar and I had a similar mix up earlier but thankfully all is resolved now.

AlofRI

WOW! I actually have no hatred of ANY religion. I DO have a hatred of the hatred BETWEEN religions, of the hatred between races, but, then, I guess that makes me immoral.

I can't worship a "god" (any god), that would kill everyone on Earth, and all but two of each animal on Earth because S/HE/IT's … upset. Kills the innocent "first born" of any who don't follow the rules. Allows crazies to walk into a "house of worship" and kill many, if not all. (That's ANY religion). Allows diseases to kill thousands of innocents … including babies, allows hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc. to kill babies …. and somehow gets the praises of love for "a "miracle" that saved ONE. As I said, I have no hate for anyone's religion, or religious morals. They just don't fit my "standards" of humanity OR morals, which some, apparently, don't think are up to religious "standards". 

That's OK. I don't feel bad that I feel society's "standards" seem more humane to me than many religious ones. I sleep well as an atheist. I think we should take better care of this planet (God's creation, if you must), work to cure illnesses, work to prevent wars or hatred between religions, work to see that health care isn't only for those who can afford it. I don't have to be a Christian to have morals.

Gandhi said: "There are people in the world so hungry, that GOD can only appear to them in the form of bread." Gandhi was not a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew. Yet he had morals. He also said: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." (I'm sure he didn't mean that collectively. It wasn't his way). It's not mine either. However, I'll hold his morals (and mine) up against many of the religious morals of today. 

AlofRI

AlofRI said:

WOW! I actually have no hatred of ANY religion. I DO have a hatred of the hatred BETWEEN religions, of the hatred between races, but, then, I guess that makes me immoral.

I can't worship a "god" (any god), that would kill everyone on Earth, and all but two of each animal on Earth because S/HE/IT's … upset. Kills the innocent "first born" of any who don't follow the rules. Allows crazies to walk into a "house of worship" and kill many, if not all. (That's ANY religion). Allows diseases to kill thousands of innocents … including babies, allows hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc. to kill babies …. and somehow gets the praises of love for "a "miracle" that saved ONE. As I said, I have no hate for anyone's religion, or religious morals. They just don't fit my "standards" of humanity OR morals, which some, apparently, don't think are up to religious "standards". 

That's OK. I don't feel bad that I feel society's "standards" seem more humane to me than many religious ones. I sleep well as an atheist. I think we should take better care of this planet (God's creation, if you must), work to cure illnesses, work to prevent wars or hatred between religions, work to see that health care isn't only for those who can afford it. I don't have to be a Christian to have morals.

Gandhi said: "There are people in the world so hungry, that GOD can only appear to them in the form of bread." Gandhi was not a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew. Yet he had morals. He also said: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." (I'm sure he didn't mean that collectively. It wasn't his way). It's not mine either. However, I'll hold his morals (and mine) up against many of the religious morals of today. 

"We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has believed in, Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins

AlofRI

AlofRI said:

WOW! I actually have no hatred of ANY religion. I DO have a hatred of the hatred BETWEEN religions, of the hatred between races, but, then, I guess that makes me immoral.

I can't worship a "god" (any god), that would kill everyone on Earth, and all but two of each animal on Earth because S/HE/IT's … upset. Kills the innocent "first born" of any who don't follow the rules. Allows crazies to walk into a "house of worship" and kill many, if not all. (That's ANY religion). Allows diseases to kill thousands of innocents … including babies, allows hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc. to kill babies …. and somehow gets the praises of love for "a "miracle" that saved ONE. As I said, I have no hate for anyone's religion, or religious morals. They just don't fit my "standards" of humanity OR morals, which some, apparently, don't think are up to religious "standards". 

That's OK. I don't feel bad that I feel society's "standards" seem more humane to me than many religious ones. I sleep well as an atheist. I think we should take better care of this planet (God's creation, if you must), work to cure illnesses, work to prevent wars or hatred between religions, work to see that health care isn't only for those who can afford it. I don't have to be a Christian to have morals.

Gandhi said: "There are people in the world so hungry, that GOD can only appear to them in the form of bread." Gandhi was not a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew. Yet he had morals. He also said: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." (I'm sure he didn't mean that collectively. It wasn't his way). It's not mine either. However, I'll hold his morals (and mine) up against many of the religious morals of today. 

"We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has believed in, Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins

ZeusAres42

@ethang5

Morality is not and does not need to be bounded by or ingrained in religion........... to be what?

For a person to be and/or behave morally.

Dispute all the atheist echo's in here, there is a question they can never answer.

Being or not being able to or refusing to answer a question does not rest on whether or not someone is religious or an atheist.

Without a standard, what makes any morality better than another? Christians say you need a standard in order to have an objective morality. A subjective morality has no reason it ought be followed.

Standards can and do exist without religion.

Christians are not saying you need God to have a morality. Even hyenas have a morality.

I wouldn't know what most Christians are saying about morality or what hyenas think about it either.

Why can't atheists see this simple truth?

What truth? Please elaborate.

So your morality says killing an unborn child is moral. Abdul's morality says the opposite. Who is moral?

Could you please elaborate on this point so I don't assume what you're implying.

The hypocritical thing is, atheist can see the need for a standard in everything except morality. We have a standard for hours, GMT. A standard for location, GPS. A standard for distance, miles. A standard for time, light years. A standard for energy, for light, even for volume.

The hypocrisy of people is irrelevant to an argument being presented. Furthermore, there are lots of atheists in the world and no one can argue what all atheists hold as being immoral albeit we can form opinions and beliefs about atheists. 

But for morality, the atheist suddenly cannot see the need, the value, of an objective standard.

"God isn't that standard" they will cry. Never seeing it doesn't matter. No matter whether we settle on inches, feet, yards, meters, or miles, we have to settle on something if we are going to talk to each other about distance.

First admit that we need a standard. Forget your fear and hatred of God. Morality needs a standard, or we are just a bunch of idiots each claiming his morality is better than the other.

Please refer to my previous responses as one or more of them are applicable here too.

THEDENIER

Morality is of course something which must inherently be based upon some sort of assumption, just as all mathematics is grounded on some basic fundamentals which are unprovable (Euclid's axioms: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry/Euclid%27s_axioms#quiz0). For this reason, something must be believed based upon faith. No action can be inherently negative unless we have some sort of moral axiom to judge it against. The question is not if we need an axiom, but rather what axiom one chooses. 

Yes all morality must be based on some assumption; Jordan Peterson might call this a "god" though this is a perverted definition of the term. Without such an assumption nothing can really be immoral. Just think of something you deem morally abhorrent and keep asking yourself a series of "why" questions as to why it is wrong. For example: Why is murder bad? Murder is bad because it kills someone. Why is killing someone bad? Killing someone is bad in part because it makes their family and friends sad. Why is making their loved ones sad bad? Because it makes people unhappy. And there we have found our axiom again. One can't prove making people unhappy is bad, but one must take it "on faith".

The "moral axiom" of those who are religious is a god. Basically, one assumes that a god exists, and then whatever morality comes forth from that god is the objective moral code. This moral code often tends to be complicated and fluid though. If morality was really exactly and only what god said, we would still have slavery (it is endorsed in the bible). Furthermore, deriving morality from a god requires a slew of other assumptions and beliefs. For example, if I choose Christian morality and a Christian god, then I must now also believe in Christ, the holy spirit, and, if the bible is to be taken literally, creationism. This isn't really the ideal framework is it? It's overly complicated, vague, open to societal interpretation, and requires a lot of assumptions.

There are alternatives though, thanks to philosophy. Utilitarianism is a great example. All you have to take on faith can be condensed into one simple sentence: "The most good to the most people, and the least harm to the least people." Naturally this is open to interpretation: What are "people"? What constitutes "good"? How can we measure this? Even so, a simple moral code like this one requires many fewer assumtions, and is much clearer. By Occam's razor, the simpler morality wins. Why individually rule rape, murder, and theft immoral if one can simply say that harming others is immoral, and all three acts constitute harm. 

In conclusion: Some sort of axiom is necessary, though it may not need to be tied to any sort of religion or worship. In fact, a moral code without religious ties is often better because it is simpler, easier to follow, less susceptible to societal reinterpretation, and requires only one assumption as opposed to a host of assumtions. Sure, all morality must be based upon something we take on faith, but why make that a god?

ethang5

@ZeusAres42

Morality is not and does not need to be bounded by or ingrained in religion........... to be what?

>For a person to be and/or behave morally. 

But what is "behaving morally"? What makes your behavior moral? How do you designate a behavior moral? For example, how do you decide how far away a city is, if everyone has their own measuring standard? It would make sense to you, but you could not communicate that distance to anyone else.

So no, morality does need to be bounded by something. It needs a standard.

(More on Standards later)

Dispute all the atheist echo's in here, there is a question they can never answer.

>Being or not being able to or refusing to answer a question does not rest on whether or not someone is religious or an atheist. 

Yet my experience has been that atheists will not answer questions or debate honestly.

Without a standard, what makes any morality better than another? Christians say you need a standard in order to have an objective morality. A subjective morality has no reason it ought be followed.

>Standards can and do exist without religion. 

I did not dispute that. But not just any standard will do, some standards are better than others.

Christians are not saying you need God to have a morality. Even hyenas have a morality. 

>I wouldn't know what most Christians are saying about morality or what hyenas think about it either. 

You don't have to. The point is that Christians are not saying you need a religion in order to behave morally. It is obvious that everyone has a morality.

Why can't atheists see this simple truth? 

>What truth? Please elaborate. 

The one you're already having difficulty with. We are not arguing that no one can have a morality without God, but that no one can have an authoritative morality without God.

Atheists have difficulty seeing the difference.

So your morality says killing an unborn child is moral. Abdul's morality says the opposite. Who is moral?

>Could you please elaborate on this point so I don't assume what you're implying. 

I am not implying anything, I am asking a simple question. When you and Abdul disagree on the morality of an action, how do we tell whether the action is moral or immoral?

The hypocritical thing is, atheist can see the need for a standard in everything except morality. We have a standard for hours, GMT. A standard for location, GPS. A standard for distance, miles. A standard for time, light years. A standard for energy, for light, even for volume.

>The hypocrisy of people is irrelevant to an argument being presented.

It is relevant to the atheist accepting his inconsistency.

>Furthermore, there are lots of atheists in the world and no one can argue what all atheists hold as being immoral albeit we can form opinions and beliefs about atheists.  

But we must be intellectually honest. If I said, "Humans are born with 2 legs." An objection saying some people are born cripple is intellectually dishonest.

But for morality, the atheist suddenly cannot see the need, the value, of an objective standard.

"God isn't that standard" they will cry. Never seeing it doesn't matter. No matter whether we settle on inches, feet, yards, meters, or miles, we have to settle on something if we are going to talk to each other about distance.

First admit that we need a standard. Forget your fear and hatred of God. Morality needs a standard, or we are just a bunch of idiots each claiming his morality is better than the other.

>Please refer to my previous responses as one or more of them are applicable here too.

I saw them. They did not address my point.

Standards.

To be useful, a standard must be unchanging. That is why science uses an atomic clock instead of a Timex, and why the speed of light is called the constant and used as a standard of distance and time.

A standard must be objective, it cannot be changeable by people who may dislike it or simply come to prefer another standard. For example, like the volt, It is based on an objective value that is independent of what people think.

Finally, a standard must be authoritative. That is, it must not emanate from the mind of any man, and cannot be unilaterally changed by any man.

Authority is the right to exercise power, 

In government, authority is often used interchangeably with power. However, their meanings differ: while power is the ability to order or accomplish a goal or to influence others, authority refers to a claim of legitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power.

For example, while a mob may have the power to punish a criminal by beating or lynching, the rule of law indicates that only a court of law has the authority to determine and refer a criminal for punishment. In this sense, authority is a matter of not only the ability or power to make decisions, but the right to make these decisions and execute them with commensurate power.

ethang5

@THEDENIER

Yours was an excellent post.

>Morality is of course something which must inherently be based upon some sort of assumption, just as all mathematics is grounded on some basic fundamentals which are unprovable (Euclid's axioms: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry/Euclid%27s_axioms#quiz0).

>For this reason, something must be believed based upon faith. No action can be inherently negative unless we have some sort of moral axiom to judge it against. The question is not if we need an axiom, but rather what axiom one chooses. 

Exactly.

>Yes all morality must be based on some assumption; Jordan Peterson might call this a "god" though this is a perverted definition of the term. Without such an assumption nothing can really be immoral. Just think of something you deem morally abhorrent and keep asking yourself a series of "why" questions as to why it is wrong. For example: Why is murder bad? Murder is bad because it kills someone. Why is killing someone bad? Killing someone is bad in part because it makes their family and friends sad. Why is making their loved ones sad bad? Because it makes people unhappy. And there we have found our axiom again. One can't prove making people unhappy is bad, but one must take it "on faith".

Exactly.

>The "moral axiom" of those who are religious is a god. Basically, one assumes that a god exists, and then whatever morality comes forth from that god is the objective moral code. This moral code often tends to be complicated and fluid though. If morality was really exactly and only what god said, we would still have slavery (it is endorsed in the bible).

This is untrue, but I will focus on your main point for now.

>Furthermore, deriving morality from a god requires a slew of other assumptions and beliefs. For example, if I choose Christian morality and a Christian god, then I must now also believe in Christ, the holy spirit, and, if the bible is to be taken literally, creationism.

Not quite, but to your main point, this slew of other assumptions is true fro ANY axiom chosen. The condition is not as unique or as problematic to Christianity as you seem to want to imply.

>This isn't really the ideal framework is it?

Not if we take your spin on it as fact no. But that framework, without the liberal progressive slant, has been workable for centuries.

>It's overly complicated, vague, open to societal interpretation, and requires a lot of assumptions.

These are all your opinion based on your preexisting bias.

>There are alternatives though, thanks to philosophy. Utilitarianism is a great example. All you have to take on faith can be condensed into one simple sentence: "The most good to the most people, and the least harm to the least people."

The vagueness of this standard becomes clear as soon as you try to put it into real life. Like communism, it is nice in theory but totally unworkable in reality.

>Naturally this is open to interpretation: What are "people"? What constitutes "good"? How can we measure this? Even so, a simple moral code like this one requires many fewer assumtions, and is much clearer.

I can challenge that. It only appears simpler. But it has another problem, and that problem is fatal. "Good and Harm" are based on what men like or dislike at a certain time. That changes. Can you imagine a yardstick that changed length with time? It would be useless as a standard.

>By Occam's razor, the simpler morality wins.

No it does not. Occam's razor is logical nonsense, but is off topic right now, but there is no reason to assume a simpler morality is better.

We aren't trying to find out what morality is easier, but which morality is TRUE. We aren't building a morality, we are finding one.

>Why individually rule rape, murder, and theft immoral if one can simply say that harming others is immoral, and all three acts constitute harm.

True, but your example is limited. Most things are not as morally clear as rape, murder, and theft. And sometimes, even those things are morally unclear.

>In conclusion: Some sort of axiom is necessary, though it may not need to be tied to any sort of religion or worship.

It doesn't need to have a standard to exist, true, but it does need a standard to be authoritative. Otherwise, it is just an opinion that is only as valid as any other opinion.

>In fact, a moral code without religious ties is often better because it is simpler, easier to follow, less susceptible to societal reinterpretation, and requires only one assumption as opposed to a host of assumtions.

This is demonstrably untrue. Give me an example of such a moral code and I'll show you.

>Sure, all morality must be based upon something we take on faith, but why make that a god?

Because considering the three criteria that make for the best standard, nothing is logically better than God.

And it has the added value of being workable even if the participants do not believe the God exists.

Dee

@THEDENIER

You say ......Sure, all morality must be based upon something we take on faith, but why make that a god?

My reply ......Faith is based on spiritual conviction nothing else , a god is unnecessary  for individuals to be moral as can be witnessed by those who live perfectly in harmony and peace without the need of god , in truth the belief in an authoritative source of morality has led to slavery , persecution and demonization of millions worldwide .

BrandyKnight

@Dee No apology necessary, Things run together and I did not properly quote so that led to confusion. I enjoy debating with you and respect your knowledge. I learn a lot from debating. Differing opinions are necessary for all of us to grow if we allow ourselves to. I look forward to continued debates and study. 

Dee

@BrandyKnight

Hi Brandy , thanks a lot for that and it’s a pleasure to debate with a kind intelligent person like yourself who’s opinions are always interesting and challenging 

MayCaesar

ethang5 said:

No it does not. Occam's razor is logical nonsense, but is off topic right now, but there is no reason to assume a simpler morality is better.

Occam's Razor is not about simplicity, it is about universality. You look for a model that explains everything based on the smallest set of generalisations possible, so everything else can be derived from them.

If your model requires millions assumptions in order to work, while another model explains everything with three simple basic claims, then it is reasonable to say that your model is hogwash that does not really get to the bottom of any issue and simply describes the observations, without making any predictions.

We can write down a list of claims:
1+1=2
1+2=3
2+2=4
...

Or we can simply define the rule of summation, and then all of these relations will be derived from it naturally.

What do you think is a more valid model: one that gives you a method of calculating the sum of two numbers, or one that forces you to memorise an infinite number of relations, not establishing any patterns or rules?

Similarly, if your morality features thousands disjointed directives to be memorised, then that morality is ridiculous. On the other hand, if you have several basic principles from which you derive the rest of your morals, then your moral system is worth something. That is the Occam's Razor in a nutshell.

ZeusAres42

@ethang5

Morality is not and does not need to be bounded by or ingrained in religion........... to be what?

>For a person to be and/or behave morally. 

But what is "behaving morally"? What makes your behavior moral? How do you designate a behavior moral?

Good questions. The empathy that is inherent in most human beings is what dictates the morality of a person and this does not rest on religion, God or any particular standards for that matter; it's part of most human beings biological makeup at the very root.

For example, how do you decide how far away a city is, if everyone has their own measuring standard? It would make sense to you, but you could not communicate that distance to anyone else.

This actually can be answered mathematically and would make sense to anyone that understands basic math. However, it's irrelevant to the current topic.

So no, morality does need to be bounded by something. It needs a standard.

(More on Standards later)

Already answered.

Dispute all the atheist echo's in here, there is a question they can never answer.

>Being or not being able to or refusing to answer a question does not rest on whether or not someone is religious or an atheist. 

Yet my experience has been that atheists will not answer questions or debate honestly.

You experience with atheists is personal and subjective as well as not being representative of all the atheists in the globe.

Without a standard, what makes any morality better than another? Christians say you need a standard in order to have an objective morality. A subjective morality has no reason it ought be followed.

>Standards can and do exist without religion. 

I did not dispute that. But not just any standard will do, some standards are better than others.

Already answered.

Why can't atheists see this simple truth? 

>What truth? Please elaborate. 

The one you're already having difficulty with. We are not arguing that no one can have a morality without God, but that no one can have an authoritative morality without God.Atheists have difficulty seeing the difference.

There is no such thing as an authoritative morality. Also, to refer to a religious authority that isn't falsifiable is fallacious.

So your morality says killing an unborn child is moral. Abdul's morality says the opposite. Who is moral?

>Could you please elaborate on this point so I don't assume what you're implying. 

I am not implying anything, I am asking a simple question. When you and Abdul disagree on the morality of an action, how do we tell whether the action is moral or immoral?

The only Abdul I know of was the one that attended to Queen Victoria.  Since I wasn't around in the 1800s I never met the guy.

The hypocritical thing is, atheist can see the need for a standard in everything except morality. We have a standard for hours, GMT. A standard for location, GPS. A standard for distance, miles. A standard for time, light years. A standard for energy, for light, even for volume.

>The hypocrisy of people is irrelevant to an argument being presented.

It is relevant to the atheist accepting his inconsistency.

Possibly albeit dependant on individual circumstances.

>Furthermore, there are lots of atheists in the world and no one can argue what all atheists hold as being immoral albeit we can form opinions and beliefs about atheists.  

But we must be intellectually honest. If I said, "Humans are born with 2 legs." An objection saying some people are born cripple is intellectually dishonest.

Non Sequitur; this does not follow on from my response.  Not knowing what all the atheists in the world believe about morality has nothing to do with individual cases of intellectual honesty.

But for morality, the atheist suddenly cannot see the need, the value, of an objective standard.

"God isn't that standard" they will cry. Never seeing it doesn't matter. No matter whether we settle on inches, feet, yards, meters, or miles, we have to settle on something if we are going to talk to each other about distance.

First admit that we need a standard. Forget your fear and hatred of God. Morality needs a standard, or we are just a bunch of idiots each claiming his morality is better than the other.

>Please refer to my previous responses as one or more of them are applicable here too.

I saw them. They did not address my point.

No, they were replies to the points you made.

Standards.

To be useful, a standard must be unchanging. That is why science uses an atomic clock instead of a Timex, and why the speed of light is called the constant and used as a standard of distance and time.

A standard must be objective, it cannot be changeable by people who may dislike it or simply come to prefer another standard. For example, like the volt, It is based on an objective value that is independent of what people think.

Finally, a standard must be authoritative. That is, it must not emanate from the mind of any man, and cannot be unilaterally changed by any man.

Authority is the right to exercise power, 

In government, authority is often used interchangeably with power. However, their meanings differ: while power is the ability to order or accomplish a goal or to influence others, authority refers to a claim of legitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power.

For example, while a mob may have the power to punish a criminal by beating or lynching, the rule of law indicates that only a court of law has the authority to determine and refer a criminal for punishment. In this sense, authority is a matter of not only the ability or power to make decisions, but the right to make these decisions and execute them with commensurate power.

I think we should be careful not to conflate science with religion. There is a lot of science information that tells us how we got to where we are now and none of that rests on religion or a creator.

ethang5

@ZeusAres42

....is not and does not need to be bounded by or ingrained in religion........... to be what?

>For a person to be and/or behave morally.

But what is "behaving morally"? What makes your behavior moral? How do you designate a behavior moral?

>Good questions. The empathy that is inherent in most human beings is what dictates the morality of a person and this does not rest on religion, God or any particular standards for that matter; it's part of most human beings biological makeup at the very root.

Yet human beings have vastly different ideas of what is moral. You have offered no realistic way of answering the questions I asked. You were so busy guarding against god, you missed the point of the questions.

For example, how do you decide how far away a city is, if everyone has their own measuring standard? It would make sense to you, but you could not communicate that distance to anyone else.

>This actually can be answered mathematically and would make sense to anyone that understands basic math. However, it's irrelevant to the current topic.

No it isn't. Without a common standard of measurement, we could not convey measurements of distance (or any other measurements) to one another. Basic math is not the point, a basic standard is.

So no, morality does need to be bounded by something. It needs a standard. (More on Standards later)

>Already answered.

No question was asked. A statement was made. Morality needs a standard if we are going to convey moral measurements to each other.

Despite all the atheist echo's in here, there is a question they can never answer.

>Being or not being able to or refusing to answer a question does not rest on whether or not someone is religious or an atheist. 

I know. Please stop contradicting points I have not made. It is unnecessary.

Yet my experience has been that atheists will not answer questions or debate honestly.

>Your experience with atheists is personal and subjective as well as not being representative of all the atheists in the globe. 

Again, I know. But my experience is all I have, same as you, and I can mention it.

Without a standard, what makes any morality better than another? Christians say you need a standard in order to have an objective morality. A subjective morality has no reason it ought be followed.

>Standards can and do exist without religion.

I have not said or implied that standards cannot exist without religion. You seem to be paranoid about religion. I said that any form of measure, from distance to time to morality, requires a standard of measurement. This is factual and has nothing to do with religion.

But not just any standard will do, some standards are better than others.

>Already answered.

It wasn't a question, it was a statement of fact. I don't think you even know what I'm talking about.

Why can't atheists see this simple truth?

>What truth? Please elaborate.

The one you're already having difficulty with. We are not arguing that no one can have a morality without God, but that no one can have an authoritative morality without God. Atheists have difficulty seeing the difference.

>There is no such thing as an authoritative morality.

You should alert philosophers and ethicists then. And if you are right, and you aren't, this conversation of yours is silliness.

>Also, to refer to a religious authority that isn't falsifiable is fallacious.

Untrue and illogical. Not every truth is falsifiable. That is why we have axioms. Atheist talking points are not established truth in the real world.

So your morality says killing an unborn child is moral. Abdul's morality says the opposite. Who is moral?

>Could you please elaborate on this point so I don't assume what you're implying.

I am not implying anything, I am asking a simple question. When you and Abdul disagree on the morality of an action, how do we tell whether the action is moral or immoral?

>The only Abdul I know of was the one that attended to Queen Victoria.  Since I wasn't around in the 1800s I never met the guy.

Thank you. This is what I mean by atheist not debating with intellectual honesty. You know full well that I mean when you and another person disagree on the morality of an action, how do we tell whether the action is moral or immoral? You had to dodge.

Typical. My experience with atheists is vindicated.

The hypocritical thing is, atheist can see the need for a standard in everything except morality. We have a standard for hours, GMT. A standard for location, GPS. A standard for distance, miles. A standard for time, light years. A standard for energy, for light, even for volume.

>The hypocrisy of people is irrelevant to an argument being presented.

It is relevant to the atheist accepting his inconsistency.

>Possibly albeit dependant on individual circumstances.

Do you accept your inconsistency here?

>Furthermore, there are lots of atheists in the world and no one can argue what all atheists hold as being immoral albeit we can form opinions and beliefs about atheists.  

But we must be intellectually honest. If I said, "Humans are born with 2 legs." An objection saying some people are born cripple is intellectually dishonest.

>Non Sequitur; this does not follow on from my response.

It doesn’t have to follow from your response, it has to follow from the point I’m making. Your pointing out that some atheists think differently does not invalidate the general rule. It is an intellectually dishonest way to debate.

>Not knowing what all the atheists in the world believe about morality has nothing to do with individual cases of intellectual honesty. 

I know, and I did not say it did. But odds do matter. Stop evaluating the discussion and address the points. No one is seeking your validation.

But for morality, the atheist suddenly cannot see the need, the value, of an objective standard.

"God isn't that standard" they will cry. Never seeing it doesn't matter. No matter whether we settle on inches, feet, yards, meters, or miles, we have to settle on something if we are going to talk to each other about distance.

First admit that we need a standard. Forget your fear and hatred of God. Morality needs a standard, or we are just a bunch of idiots each claiming his morality is better than the other.

>Please refer to my previous responses as one or more of them are applicable here too.

I saw them. They did not address my point.

>No, they were replies to the points you made.

They were replies yes, but did not address the points I made. You seem to be arguing against religion and my argument has nothing to do with religion. But as is typical of atheists, you are so focused on keeping god out, you have missed the argument.

Standards.

To be useful, a standard must be unchanging. That is why science uses an atomic clock instead of a Timex, and why the speed of light is called the constant and used as a standard of distance and time.

A standard must be objective, it cannot be changeable by people who may dislike it or simply come to prefer another standard. For example, like the volt, It is based on an objective value that is independent of what people think.

Finally, a standard must be authoritative. That is, it must not emanate from the mind of any man, and cannot be unilaterally changed by any man.

Authority is the right to exercise power, 

In government, authority is often used interchangeably with power. However, their meanings differ: while power is the ability to order or accomplish a goal or to influence others, authority refers to a claim of legitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power. 

For example, while a mob may have the power to punish a criminal by beating or lynching, the rule of law indicates that only a court of law has the authority to determine and refer a criminal for punishment. In this sense, authority is a matter of not only the ability or power to make decisions, but the right to make these decisions and execute them with commensurate power.

>I think we should be careful not to conflate science with religion.

I have yet not spoken about religion. Instead of addressing the point above, you're making an unwarranted pitch about religion.

You said there was no such thing as an authoritative morality. In the example given above of a mob lynching or a state issuing capital punishment, could not the morality that stipulates that killers be sentenced by a legitimate court instead of lynched be considered authoritative?

>There is a lot of science information that tells us how we got to where we are now and none of that rests on religion or a creator. 

Just turn off your god paranoia for a moment and try to understand the principle I'm advocating.

Any rational person would call detention by a police officer an arrest, and detention by a common man, kidnapping. The police officer, by his office, has moral authority to detain, the commoner does not.

Humanism looks good on paper, but is unworkable in the real world. It offers a dream, but delivers a nightmare. It is a standard, but a poor standard as it lacks moral authority.

Do you agree that we need a standard by which to judge (or measure) the morality of actions?

Do you agree that some standards are better than others?

Simple yes or no questions.

ZeusAres42

@ethang5

....is not and does not need to be bounded by or ingrained in religion........... to be what?

>For a person to be and/or behave morally.

But what is "behaving morally"? What makes your behavior moral? How do you designate a behavior moral?

>Good questions. The empathy that is inherent in most human beings is what dictates the morality of a person and this does not rest on religion, God or any particular standards for that matter; it's part of most human beings biological makeup at the very root.

Yet human beings have vastly different ideas of what is moral. You have offered no realistic way of answering the questions I asked. You were so busy guarding against god, you missed the point of the questions.

In some senses yes, lots of different humans may have different ideas about the definition and measurement of morality. That doesn't change the fact that there is a universal morality innate in us. As for the latter this can also be seen in other animal species such as mammals. Other animal species can be seen looking after their young at all costs, defending their own fellow species from enemies, etc. Of course, there is some subjectivity surrounding morality along the line, however, the notion that morality is innate in us rests on an objective fact. By the way, it's been some time since we discussed. Can you remind me if you are proposing that the only way to have an objective basis for morality is if there is a God?

As for the latter highlighted quote in Bold I am not guarding against a God as I cannot guard against something for with I do not believe in; a theistic God that is.

Christians say you need a standard in order to have an objective morality. A subjective morality has no reason it ought be followed.

Isn't the moral standards of Christians subjective also? By the way, when you are talking about moral objectivity are you referring to moral absolutism? 

 We are not arguing that no one can have a morality without God, but that no one can have an authoritative morality without God.

Ok, let's assume then in your case that there is a God that is the authority on morality. Now, answer me this: Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?

Do you agree that we need a standard by which to judge (or measure) the morality of actions?

Do you agree that some standards are better than others?

Simple yes or no questions.

Yes, I do agree some standards are better than others. I find the following response from Richard Dawkins a very agreeable standard of morality: