Freethought & Rationalism Archive

03-21-2007, 04:56 PM

Right, first off, apologies if this has been done to death. I'm a newbie, and can't see it here at a quick glance, so if it has been done already, please could someone post a link as a reply, and that'd be grand.

My question is this; I often get sucked into arguments with theists along the lines of "moral absolutes exist and can only come from god. Atheists must therefore be moral relativists". (and therefore, by some weirdly never given argument, be actively evil)

My question is this; suppose for a moment that there exists a god. If it has good reason for handing down the morals it does, do those reasons necessarily exist outside that god? i.e. if there exists a moral absolute, doesn't it exist regardless of your answer to the god question?

If there is good reason for the morality (i.e. it is an absolute) then why do we need god(s) to tell it to us?

If there is no good reason, isn't this just god(s) subjective (i.e. relative) morality?

In other words, isn't it the theists position that is in total contradiction with moral absolutes, not the atheists?

(Please note, I am not looking for a discussion about whether people think moral absolutes exist, just whether my logic here is correct, and whether I can use it to nuke theist arguments. Thanks)

Gwen · 03-21-2007, 05:02 PM

Posted to the "The Efficacy of the Problem of Evil" in which someone is trying to make exactly the argument you're responding to:

Quote:

The problem is, Vinnie, that there is no difference between atheism and theism in terms of the existence of objective morality. Divine Command Theory is no more objective than Gwen's Talking Fish Command Theory or Gwen Command Theory.
The only difference between atheism and theism when it comes to evil is that I can accept that evil exists precisely because I don't believe that an omnimax God exists. You, on the other hand, must argue either that evil does not exist, or that no omnimax God exists--as you said, one of the premises of the Problem of Evil is flawed. You have to decide which one. Does evil not exist? Does evil exist, but God doesn't know about it? Does evil exist, and God knows about it, but God isn't absolutely committed to eradicating it? Is God absolutely committed to eradicating the evil that God knows about and exists, but is unable to eradicate evil? Which one?
Divine Command Theory, like any other "X wants Y=Y is good" argument, eventually leads to Euthyphro's dilemma. Does God want it because it is good, or is it good because God wants it? If the former, why is it good? If the latter, why does God wanting it make it good--if God wanted you to kill your child, would it be good for you to do so? And you end up with no more objective evil or objective good than you do with a talking fish.
On the other hand, if you define evil as unnecessary suffering, you end up with a strong morality system that doesn't rely on "because God says so".

So, yeah, good logic. You'll still get "la la la la la, I can't hear you!" repetition from the theist you're talking to, probably, but it's disingenuous to claim that getting morality from God is any better than getting morality from a talking fish or from your own conscience. The difference is, we know consciences and fish exist.

03-21-2007, 05:13 PM

Thanks Gwen. I'll check that thread.

decalog10 · 03-29-2007, 09:15 PM

My question is this; I often get sucked into arguments with theists along the lines of "moral absolutes exist and can only come from god.

My question is: How do you respond to the claim that "moral absoutes exist and can only come from god."?
If, and I don't know if you do, agree that certain actions are right and wrong at all times, for all people, everywhere, then I don't see any other way to justify these ABSOLUTES unless they are undergirded by an ABSOLUTE REALITY[GOD, ALLAH, THE ETERNAL ONE, THE UNCONDITIONED] or whatever you want to call it.

Gwen · 04-02-2007, 12:28 PM

Morality coming from a god is no more "absolute" and "objective" than morality coming from my pet fish, or from the Amazing Objecto!, or from my aunt Katy.
Can God act immorally?
Yes? Then where did the standard of morality come from?
No? Then it's pretty clearly not "right and wrong at all times, for all people, everywhere": genocide isn't "objectively wrong" if it's O.K. for God to do it because he's omnipotent.
Might does not make right. Hell, since so many people think that Satan is more active in the world than God is, and Satan's powerful enough God doesn't wipe him out, why don't we look to Satan for our standards of morality, if "whatever the authority figure says" is a good "objective" standard for morality?
Divine Command Theory. What a joke.

username · 04-02-2007, 12:55 PM

Absolute morality simply means that the rightness or wrongness of an action are not changed by the circumstances.

Hinging the morality on a commandment from a moral, unchanging, eternal being is one way to accomplish this.

It can also be done by citing nature|evolution|survival of the species. For example some people believe one aspect of what is moral is whether it positively or negatively affects the survivability of the species. I am not arguing one should do this, but it is a way to arrive at absolute morality. Either an action favors continued survivability of the species or it lessens it. In this way having children would be moral and committing suicide would be immoral.

All that is necessary is to have an underlying reason why the action is always wrong (or right) for everyone, everywhere, at all times and there are plenty of substitutes for deities.

Perhaps a better question to ask a theist is why is it necessary or even advantageous to have moral absolutes? Why not consider things according to the circumstances? There are fair arguments to be had along these lines, but the run of the mill theists I have run into don't have any reasons to believe absolute morality is desirable, they just accept (on faith) that it is desirable.

Most people are plenty capable of believing taking the life of a human being is *usually* immoral, but there may be circumstances where it is amoral or even moral. Is there any virtue in coming up with an absolute stand on the issue of taking human life that does not allow the circumstances to be taken into account?

Mad_Michael · 04-06-2007, 07:30 AM

I totally agree.

Any definition of 'absolute' requires a God or god(s) to make it so.

04-11-2007, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

I totally agree.

Any definition of 'absolute' requires a God or god(s) to make it so.

I'm sorry, but who are you agreeing with here?

Gwen · 04-11-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

I'm sorry, but who are you agreeing with here?

Maybe he just read the thread title (Absolutism - god(s) required) and wanted to register his agreement with it? :huh:

Mad_Michael · 04-12-2007, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuisGarcia

I'm sorry, but who are you agreeing with here?

The statement of the thread title of this discussion.

Absolutism requires an absolute God. I agree.

If there is no God, there can be no absolute rules (absolute truth, or absolute facts).

I stated my agreement with this concept because I understand it is a minority position that is much denigrated and commonly abused.

03-21-2007, 04:56 PM	#1
LuisGarcia Guest Posts: n/a	Absolutism - god(s) required Right, first off, apologies if this has been done to death. I'm a newbie, and can't see it here at a quick glance, so if it has been done already, please could someone post a link as a reply, and that'd be grand. My question is this; I often get sucked into arguments with theists along the lines of "moral absolutes exist and can only come from god. Atheists must therefore be moral relativists". (and therefore, by some weirdly never given argument, be actively evil) My question is this; suppose for a moment that there exists a god. If it has good reason for handing down the morals it does, do those reasons necessarily exist outside that god? i.e. if there exists a moral absolute, doesn't it exist regardless of your answer to the god question? If there is good reason for the morality (i.e. it is an absolute) then why do we need god(s) to tell it to us? If there is no good reason, isn't this just god(s) subjective (i.e. relative) morality? In other words, isn't it the theists position that is in total contradiction with moral absolutes, not the atheists? (Please note, I am not looking for a discussion about whether people think moral absolutes exist, just whether my logic here is correct, and whether I can use it to nuke theist arguments. Thanks)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-21-2007, 05:13 PM	#3
LuisGarcia Guest Posts: n/a	Thanks Gwen. I'll check that thread.

03-29-2007, 09:15 PM	#4
decalog10 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Hawaii Posts: 742	My question is this; I often get sucked into arguments with theists along the lines of "moral absolutes exist and can only come from god. My question is: How do you respond to the claim that "moral absoutes exist and can only come from god."? If, and I don't know if you do, agree that certain actions are right and wrong at all times, for all people, everywhere, then I don't see any other way to justify these ABSOLUTES unless they are undergirded by an ABSOLUTE REALITY[GOD, ALLAH, THE ETERNAL ONE, THE UNCONDITIONED] or whatever you want to call it.

04-02-2007, 12:28 PM	#5
Gwen Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Transylvania Polygnostic University Posts: 1,172	Morality coming from a god is no more "absolute" and "objective" than morality coming from my pet fish, or from the Amazing Objecto!, or from my aunt Katy. Can God act immorally? Yes? Then where did the standard of morality come from? No? Then it's pretty clearly not "right and wrong at all times, for all people, everywhere": genocide isn't "objectively wrong" if it's O.K. for God to do it because he's omnipotent. Might does not make right. Hell, since so many people think that Satan is more active in the world than God is, and Satan's powerful enough God doesn't wipe him out, why don't we look to Satan for our standards of morality, if "whatever the authority figure says" is a good "objective" standard for morality? Divine Command Theory. What a joke.

04-02-2007, 12:55 PM	#6
username Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: US Posts: 635	Absolute morality simply means that the rightness or wrongness of an action are not changed by the circumstances. Hinging the morality on a commandment from a moral, unchanging, eternal being is one way to accomplish this. It can also be done by citing nature\|evolution\|survival of the species. For example some people believe one aspect of what is moral is whether it positively or negatively affects the survivability of the species. I am not arguing one should do this, but it is a way to arrive at absolute morality. Either an action favors continued survivability of the species or it lessens it. In this way having children would be moral and committing suicide would be immoral. All that is necessary is to have an underlying reason why the action is always wrong (or right) for everyone, everywhere, at all times and there are plenty of substitutes for deities. Perhaps a better question to ask a theist is why is it necessary or even advantageous to have moral absolutes? Why not consider things according to the circumstances? There are fair arguments to be had along these lines, but the run of the mill theists I have run into don't have any reasons to believe absolute morality is desirable, they just accept (on faith) that it is desirable. Most people are plenty capable of believing taking the life of a human being is usually immoral, but there may be circumstances where it is amoral or even moral. Is there any virtue in coming up with an absolute stand on the issue of taking human life that does not allow the circumstances to be taken into account?

04-06-2007, 07:30 AM	#7
Mad_Michael Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 32	I totally agree. Any definition of 'absolute' requires a God or god(s) to make it so.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.