Trekkie With a Phaser

I was wondering if there is a good refutation to the Christian argument that, as a non-believer, I have no justification for my morality because I don't believe in their god. I usually use the argument that there are evolutionary purposes for morality as well as the argument that, in order for a society to work at all, there must be laws against certain behaviors. Although both of these are true, I'm looking for some stronger arguments. Can anyone provide me with some (feel free to point and laugh at me for my ignorance while you do so )?

TooBad

The traditional Christian argument is (roughly) that "It is morally good to do X" is defined as "God wants us to do X". For instance, "It is good to love our neighbour" means "God wants us to love our neighbour". God's will is the "objective" standard against which all moral judgments are to be made.

This raises a few questions. Why does God want us to love our neighbour? The answer can't be "Because it's morally good", since that would result in a circular definition.

What does it mean to ascribe moral qualities to God himself? "God is good" must be true by definition, even if God is an arbitrary impulsive tyrant.

If God wanted us to pour boiling water over our neighbour, would that be morally good?

Do a search in the Sec Web library for "Euthyphro Dilemma", and you'll find all of these questions discussed and explained far more eloquently than I can manage.

Trekkie With a Phaser

Thanks for the info, TooBad. There are quite a few arguments which can be created out of that particular dilemma. This helps me out quite a bit.

DMB

Christian morality is no more objective than any other sort. It derives its justification from the claimed will of an entity whose existence cannot be proved. It is hardly surprising that people who claim to be xians and to know the will of god often disagree about what god wants.

Albion

I'm getting very tired of the attitude that there's God-given (as in Christian God-give) morality or there's total moral relativism and there's nothing in between. Without some sort of societal moral code, humans wouldn't be able to live in complex societies; since humans are social beings, it pretty much follows that the means to live in complex societies, including the ability to develop a system of morals, would have evolved along with the rest of our mental processes as we developed empathy and the capacity for abstract thought. Other animals that live socially can be observed to have this ability at a more or less rudimentary level; our brains make it possible for us to have a very highly developed morality compared with other animals - and also, I gather, to deny that other animals have it at all.

Autonemesis

"I do good things because they are good and I want to do good, not because I am commanded to do good. What other justification is required? Do I need a note from Jesus to do good?"

Trekkie With a Phaser

Albion, I agree completely. I've been arguing that human morality evolved along with us, but that's rarely enough to convince a Christian. In my experience, Christians and atheists use two completely different languages when it comes to debating issues of morality (they debate using myth and faith and atheists debate using science and reality). That's why I'm looking for arguments which will have a stronger effect on Christians.

Kind Bud, your argument is cynical as well as to the point. I love it!

(Edited because my post was a bit rude.)

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Trekkie With a Phaser ]</p>

Rusting Car Bumper

Quite simple.

The kind of Christian morality you describe presumes that morality comes from authority.

That presumption requires justification. If they try to justify it, then such a justification has its premises independent of a god. Thus, the basis of morality is independent of god and the system boils down to "might makes right."

If they then say that the premises are justified by god then they have engaged in circular reasoning.

Further, this comparison also often presumes that "uncertain morality" or "self-determined morality" means "no morality" because again there is a different unstated assumption that morlaity must be absolute. Besides the fact that such a claim is simply false, it again requires justification. In this case I usually point out that morality is a messy business where one often does not know if he or she is "doing the right thing" and that knowing this we proceed with this fact in mind rather than in spite of it.

DC

pug846

Albion,

Eh? So what if humans couldn’t survive. It’s a fact that humans would have probably killed each other off if we wouldn’t have developed ways of interacting with each other, but so what? You’re presupposing a standard (the survival of society) and then claiming that it what we should be basing our morality on without giving any justification for using that standard as opposed to any other standard.

Trekkie With a Phaser,

The rules we in fact abide by generally change over time, but that has nothing to do with ethics. (Is/Ought problem anyone…)

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: pug846 ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

I agree that the Kind Bud's short answer is well suited for the task.

But, the short, quick question I typically come back with is, "Where does God get his morality from?"

Or, in slightly more detail, "What is to keep God from saying, 'Hey, I'm in the mood for a little sport. Let's say we take some young kids, tie one limb to each of four motorcycles, send them off in different directions, and the rider who comes up with the largest piece wins.' If you say that morality comes from God, then you would have to join in on the kiddie pull. If you say that God would never do this thing, why? Because it is wrong? It wouldn't be wrong if God told us to do it, unless its wrongness is independent of what God tells us to do."

This is the Euthyphro argument from Plato.

If you have not read this dialogue, then you should.