No such thing as an absolute morality or a Deity as the ultimate Standard of Morality

Dee

Excellent topic......... The reason why no one can conclude that a religious Divine Being is the ultimate on morality is that the very existence of a religious Divine Being cannot be determined because it is an idea that is not falsifiable. So, if the very existence of something cannot be tested how on earth can you measure and/or define whether or not that Divine Being is an authority on anything? 

• There is no such thing as moral absolutism any way, albeit I do believe in a kind of moral universalism; two different things by the way. As for an absolute morality that would mean that something is either always moral even at the expense of reason, rationality and logic. As Richard Dawkins said, if religious morality is the only absolutist morality then I do do not think I want one; instead I would opt for one like he said that is thought out, reasoned, argued and discussed. 

I agree with what you say RationalWiki an excellent source lists the reasons why  absolute morality is irrational ......

• The existence of God is assumed in defining something that already exists (morality); therefore it is circular reasoningby attempting to show the existence of God in this manner.
• The assumption of an omnipotent God leads to problems communicating a moral code in a clear way to people in an authentic manner.
• The specification that morality is "hard-wired" by God (to circumvent the communication problem) implies that this argument from morality is dependent on direct creationactually happening, and that the Original sindidn't change/damage it.
• There are explanations for the origin of morals other than "Goddidit".
• When multiple religions/denominations each use this argument to justify their own version of deity, the credibility of the whole argument weakens. This is because the "objective" morality used for the premise is not exactly the same for each religion/denomination.
• For Abrahamic religions, God's actionsaren'texactlywhat most people can justify as "moral" when they are the ones performing such actions. Now you can say "It was ok then", or "It's ok for God to do that kind of thing, just not us", but at that point you've already thrown out moral absolutism.
• Perhaps the biggest problem of all is that if all of Divine Morality can be derived from naturalistic morality (i.e., Divine Morality is morally equivalent to "whatever is best for humanity"), religion and the gods themselves aren't necessaryfor humans to have Divine Morality. If Divine Morality contradicts naturalistic morality, Divine Morality and thus the gods themselves are actually malevolent.

maxx

@ZeusAres42 it is only among humans that morals exist at all. it is a human made concept which has no part in the lower animals. some people believe pets know right from wrong but in reality they are only aware that they did something that made the owner angry

ZeusAres42

maxx said:

@ZeusAres42 it is only among humans that morals exist at all. it is a human made concept which has no part in the lower animals. some people believe pets know right from wrong but in reality they are only aware that they did something that made the owner angry

Actually, moral codes have been observed in other animals. https://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

Plaffelvohfen

maxx said:

@ZeusAres42 it is only among humans that morals exist at all. it is a human made concept which has no part in the lower animals. some people believe pets know right from wrong but in reality they are only aware that they did something that made the owner angry

Every gregarious species have their own morality, any morality is dependent on context... What is right or wrong will be different for an elephant or a wolf... Certain behaviors are detrimental to the group's chance of survival and those would be punished while other actions would improve the chances of survival, those actions would be encouraged... This is what morality is about, fundamentally... 

Here's a great lecture from Patricia Churchland on this, a bit long (1h15) but really worth it if such things interest you..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_PtnBacAP0

ZeusAres42

@Plaffelvohfen

Thank you for the link Sorry, I missed it but will be sure to check it out as time permits.

jesusisGod777

What you said is a logical fallacy as

When stating or denying morality you deny that people are consciously unaffected by the idea of morality. 

I could logically break it down but my statement is logically adequete.

ZeusAres42

@jesusisGod777

What you said is a logical fallacy as

When stating or denying morality you deny that people are consciously unaffected by the idea of morality. 

I could logically break it down but my statement is logically adequete.

Exactly where did I state or deny people are unaffected by morality in my post? I don't know who you're speaking to here but certainly isn't me.

jesusisGod777

are you people all here as dummmmmm as rocks? When you say no such thing as, your denying something.

How do you deny morality to exist, when you have to understand what it is your denying.

People are not consciously effected by what doesn't exist because they are consciously unaware of what doesn't exist dumbass. 

What doesn't exist , does not effect 

ZeusAres42

@jesusisGod777

are you people all here as dummmmmm as rocks? When you say no such thing as, your denying something.

I've noticed here that you've resorted to name-calling. Your attitude here reflects that you're not interested in having civil and rational discourse.

This is where I say goodbye to you as we having nothing else to discuss.

jesusisGod777

Here's a test. Find out how subjective morality is.

Go to a police station and urinate. Then tell them morality subjective.

Dee

@jesusisGod777

You say .......Here's a test. Find out how subjective morality is.

Go to a police station and urinate. Then tell them morality subjective.

My reply ......You really should stop posting as everything you state is offensively  

jesusisGod777

If your offended I could care less. Emotion has no place in discussion.