I've seen it claimed that christians have a better "moral foothold" because it is based on something, in this case Gods law or will....
Perhaps this is true.
The bible does outline many points on the moral compass....
Murder...
Theft...
False witness...
You no the drill...
Perhaps the atheist can only claim to have a "subjective view" when it comes to morality....
I would contend this is actually the case with christians as well...
Well partially...
The "moral slamdunks" I am willing to concede....
Regardless if the bible outlines some aspects of morality, is it safe to assume that some positions on the moral compass are more obscure than others...
Which is to say that life is pretty complicated. It is not always apparent what the moral solution would be for a given situation....
For example...
On the subject of artificial insemination...
Perhaps it's interfering with Gods will?
I've heard both sides of the debate from christians.
Some would say its Gods will that you not be able to have a child. The believer may see the octo-mom as some type of perversion...
While some believers may be okay with science and not see a moral decision at all...
When a moral situation arises where a believer is unsure how to precede then there God based morality becomes subjective and is essentially a guess...
The reason I would say that is that no one can offer any absolute evidence that God would consider artificial insemination a moral decision...
Perhaps it is...
Both sides could give convincing evidence for their case...
But in the end it is not apparent what God would want us to do...
So you have to guess...
Is it fair to assume that for christians many situations in there life may arise when the moral action is not readily apparent?
How do you decide what to do?
Is what they choose to do just a guess?
How much of christian morality is subjective?
Does this weaken their argument against the atheist view of morality?
God based morals?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Post #2
Well, I belong to the school of thought that says that the bible isn't a handbook, doctrine can't cover everything, and indivdual conscience matters.
Non-religionists have philosophy, law, biology and social sicence to have ethical discernment and make ethical judgments. To that (or if fundamentalist, apart from that, based on a distrust of all things human) religionists add a tradition and community of scriptural readings, doctrine, theology, dialogue etc.
In the tough cases, you can:
- follow rules someone else set down, setting aside your own conscience,m reason, and heart.
- seek wise counsel (make sure this is empathic and not just someone reading the rules)
- look to the tradition for thematic guidance
- follow your consience after contemplation, study, reflection (prayer)
Catholics make a distinction between vincible ignorance (shoulda known) and invincible ignorance (couldn't have known) and put a lot if store in intent. Except they have their enforcer types too. I guess I believe that abandoning subjectivity is abandoing our humanity, yielding to subjective whims is childish, objectivity is unavailable, but informed and enformed subjectivity is as good as we got.
I hope that helps.
Non-religionists have philosophy, law, biology and social sicence to have ethical discernment and make ethical judgments. To that (or if fundamentalist, apart from that, based on a distrust of all things human) religionists add a tradition and community of scriptural readings, doctrine, theology, dialogue etc.
In the tough cases, you can:
- follow rules someone else set down, setting aside your own conscience,m reason, and heart.
- seek wise counsel (make sure this is empathic and not just someone reading the rules)
- look to the tradition for thematic guidance
- follow your consience after contemplation, study, reflection (prayer)
Catholics make a distinction between vincible ignorance (shoulda known) and invincible ignorance (couldn't have known) and put a lot if store in intent. Except they have their enforcer types too. I guess I believe that abandoning subjectivity is abandoing our humanity, yielding to subjective whims is childish, objectivity is unavailable, but informed and enformed subjectivity is as good as we got.
I hope that helps.
Post #3
First, of the 10 commandments about half deal what what I think we can agree (perhaps) are moral issues. Stealing, Murder, adultery, coveting and false witness. It's not really necessary we agree on the morality of these, the point is if any of them deal with morals it's these 5, the other 5 have to do with the Christian god's vain need to be worshiped in one sense or another, missing are the commandments that protect children and exploitation of the weak, slavery but I digress.
As far as the subjectivity, the first 5 are things we intuitively know to be in the best interest of the society we live in. These ideas weren't revolutionary, but many Christians I've spoken to act as if these ideas are revolutionary.
As an atheist I realize that the only thing subjective about my morality is my experience of it. That is, I can say I enjoy killing others. That is my subjective experience, but objectively it can be shown that killing others causes pain and suffering.
To ask the question, "who am I to say that killing causes pain and suffering?" ....Well my only reply I must quote (paraphrase) from Sam Harris. "To ask this question is to hit philosophical bed rock with the shovel of a stupid question".
Morality by definition is linked to wellbeing. Concepts like right and wrong, good and bad are defined in context what objectively happens to us. Again, you may subjectively enjoy cutting yourself, but it can be objectively shown that cutting yourself is "bad". To exclaim that wellbeing and suffering are "subjective" is to completely miss the point. Values reduce to facts, and facts can be understood in the context of human experience.
A person who enjoys causing suffering, either to himself or others can said to be "sick" and a danger to society and the rest of society has the right to prevent that person from hurting himself or others. It can be demonstrated how the malevolent actions of individuals or groups cause pain and suffering without having to appeal to a supernatural law giver.
If you’re looking to "confuse" moral decisions, look no further then the "train dilemma".
Basically, there is a train coming....It's about to reach a "Y" in the tracks. If it continues on the path it's currently set on, let’s say the right track, it will kill 5 workers. But next to you there is a button, if you hit it, it will switch the track to the left track. On that track there is 1 worker. Do you hit the button and kill one worker to save 5?
Most people hit the button.
What if the scenario is the same, but the ONLY way to save the 5 workers is to push a by-standard in the path of the train? Don't get hung up on the why, it's a hypothetical. Would you do it if that were the ONLY way to save 5 others?
Here most people say no.... The reality is the result is exactly the same, it's just your experience of the event that's different. Most people feel disconnected from the action if all they are doing is hitting a button. This is just the human ability to justify an action. Even the most "religious" people do bad things, the Pope, any one of a number of evangelicals, presidents. It's the same power of rationalization. We ALL do it....
We can screw with the train dilemma scenario all day.
What if in the first example, where all you did was hit the switch, there was a baby on the second track (left) and there were 5 guys over 70 on the other (right) track..Would you switch the track then?
What if instead of a baby it were a person widely known to be on the cusp of curing cancer? What would you do?
Would it be moral in any of these cases to do nothing?
The point is, religious morality is no guide in these cases. You will find wildly varying views from Christians and non-Christians. In the end we all revert to our innate sense of right and wrong often guided by emotion.
In the end, believing that morals are divinely inspired opens the door to all sorts of bazaar rationalizations based on the subjective interpretation of a holy book (30,000 sects of Christianity is testament to this undeniable fact) and in the end leads to things like the Westbrough Baptist Church, Jim Jones, the Catholic rape scandals, family radio, people flying planes into buildings and many, many others. They all have one thing in common. They use their holy books and their subjective interpretation of scriptures it to rationalize their actions, all while the "True Christianâ„¢" get's to sit on the sideline after the fact and condemn the rebels.
As far as the subjectivity, the first 5 are things we intuitively know to be in the best interest of the society we live in. These ideas weren't revolutionary, but many Christians I've spoken to act as if these ideas are revolutionary.
As an atheist I realize that the only thing subjective about my morality is my experience of it. That is, I can say I enjoy killing others. That is my subjective experience, but objectively it can be shown that killing others causes pain and suffering.
To ask the question, "who am I to say that killing causes pain and suffering?" ....Well my only reply I must quote (paraphrase) from Sam Harris. "To ask this question is to hit philosophical bed rock with the shovel of a stupid question".
Morality by definition is linked to wellbeing. Concepts like right and wrong, good and bad are defined in context what objectively happens to us. Again, you may subjectively enjoy cutting yourself, but it can be objectively shown that cutting yourself is "bad". To exclaim that wellbeing and suffering are "subjective" is to completely miss the point. Values reduce to facts, and facts can be understood in the context of human experience.
A person who enjoys causing suffering, either to himself or others can said to be "sick" and a danger to society and the rest of society has the right to prevent that person from hurting himself or others. It can be demonstrated how the malevolent actions of individuals or groups cause pain and suffering without having to appeal to a supernatural law giver.
If you’re looking to "confuse" moral decisions, look no further then the "train dilemma".
Basically, there is a train coming....It's about to reach a "Y" in the tracks. If it continues on the path it's currently set on, let’s say the right track, it will kill 5 workers. But next to you there is a button, if you hit it, it will switch the track to the left track. On that track there is 1 worker. Do you hit the button and kill one worker to save 5?
Most people hit the button.
What if the scenario is the same, but the ONLY way to save the 5 workers is to push a by-standard in the path of the train? Don't get hung up on the why, it's a hypothetical. Would you do it if that were the ONLY way to save 5 others?
Here most people say no.... The reality is the result is exactly the same, it's just your experience of the event that's different. Most people feel disconnected from the action if all they are doing is hitting a button. This is just the human ability to justify an action. Even the most "religious" people do bad things, the Pope, any one of a number of evangelicals, presidents. It's the same power of rationalization. We ALL do it....
We can screw with the train dilemma scenario all day.
What if in the first example, where all you did was hit the switch, there was a baby on the second track (left) and there were 5 guys over 70 on the other (right) track..Would you switch the track then?
What if instead of a baby it were a person widely known to be on the cusp of curing cancer? What would you do?
Would it be moral in any of these cases to do nothing?
The point is, religious morality is no guide in these cases. You will find wildly varying views from Christians and non-Christians. In the end we all revert to our innate sense of right and wrong often guided by emotion.
In the end, believing that morals are divinely inspired opens the door to all sorts of bazaar rationalizations based on the subjective interpretation of a holy book (30,000 sects of Christianity is testament to this undeniable fact) and in the end leads to things like the Westbrough Baptist Church, Jim Jones, the Catholic rape scandals, family radio, people flying planes into buildings and many, many others. They all have one thing in common. They use their holy books and their subjective interpretation of scriptures it to rationalize their actions, all while the "True Christianâ„¢" get's to sit on the sideline after the fact and condemn the rebels.
Post #4
I find it funny how often people say that "God's morals" are objective, as though the word God is a synonym for the word objective.
God's morals are subjective, because they are his. My morals are subjective because they are mine. Objective morals are objective because everyone agrees to them.
Morality is based in conscent.
For example;
Murder cannot be called assisted suicide.
Slaves cannot be called volunteers.
Theft cannot be called borrowing.
Beating a guy up is immoral, unless you do it in the boxing ring. But even there, there are agreed upon rules. Punching below the belt would be immoral. Nobody agrees to getting punched below the belt.
As for the train issue, I say never push the button, ever. I didn't put the train in motion, I didn't tell the people to stand there. Pushing the button makes me a player
God's morals are subjective, because they are his. My morals are subjective because they are mine. Objective morals are objective because everyone agrees to them.
Morality is based in conscent.
For example;
Murder cannot be called assisted suicide.
Slaves cannot be called volunteers.
Theft cannot be called borrowing.
Beating a guy up is immoral, unless you do it in the boxing ring. But even there, there are agreed upon rules. Punching below the belt would be immoral. Nobody agrees to getting punched below the belt.
As for the train issue, I say never push the button, ever. I didn't put the train in motion, I didn't tell the people to stand there. Pushing the button makes me a player
-
Strider324
- Banned
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 8:12 pm
- Location: Fort Worth
Post #5
Since 'god-based' morals are really just human-derived morals, my only consideration is whether I find the morals in sync with mine or not. Certainly there can be consensus, and that quality should be promoted to facilitate a more cogent moral society.
For me, I will push or not push the button depending on the scenario. I will let my values guide my decision-making process. Refusal to become a 'player' seems immoral to me. Grow a pair and ante up. Life is for those who give a damn. Would anyone seriously not run into the street to save a child from being hit by a truck because they didn't put the child in the street to begin with?? Ay caramba....
For me, I will push or not push the button depending on the scenario. I will let my values guide my decision-making process. Refusal to become a 'player' seems immoral to me. Grow a pair and ante up. Life is for those who give a damn. Would anyone seriously not run into the street to save a child from being hit by a truck because they didn't put the child in the street to begin with?? Ay caramba....
"Do Good for Good is Good to do. Spurn Bribe of Heaven and Threat of Hell"
- The Kasidah of Haji abdu al-Yezdi
- The Kasidah of Haji abdu al-Yezdi
Post #6
The train scenario is about who I should kill, not who I should save. That's the way I see it. Jumping in front of a truck to save a kid doesnt' kill anyone except maybe you. It's different than pushing a button that will kill three other people.Strider324 wrote:Since 'god-based' morals are really just human-derived morals, my only consideration is whether I find the morals in sync with mine or not. Certainly there can be consensus, and that quality should be promoted to facilitate a more cogent moral society.
For me, I will push or not push the button depending on the scenario. I will let my values guide my decision-making process. Refusal to become a 'player' seems immoral to me. Grow a pair and ante up. Life is for those who give a damn. Would anyone seriously not run into the street to save a child from being hit by a truck because they didn't put the child in the street to begin with?? Ay caramba....
Maybe this scenario is better. If you push the button you will die, but 3 old men, or a child or whoever is saved.
-
Strider324
- Banned
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 8:12 pm
- Location: Fort Worth
Post #7
I'm an old man myself, so I push the button.Mr.Badham wrote:The train scenario is about who I should kill, not who I should save. That's the way I see it. Jumping in front of a truck to save a kid doesnt' kill anyone except maybe you. It's different than pushing a button that will kill three other people.Strider324 wrote:Since 'god-based' morals are really just human-derived morals, my only consideration is whether I find the morals in sync with mine or not. Certainly there can be consensus, and that quality should be promoted to facilitate a more cogent moral society.
For me, I will push or not push the button depending on the scenario. I will let my values guide my decision-making process. Refusal to become a 'player' seems immoral to me. Grow a pair and ante up. Life is for those who give a damn. Would anyone seriously not run into the street to save a child from being hit by a truck because they didn't put the child in the street to begin with?? Ay caramba....
Maybe this scenario is better. If you push the button you will die, but 3 old men, or a child or whoever is saved.
I don't see how your argument allows you to conclude that you morally have no obligation to be a 'player'. The 'killing' cannot be seperated from the 'saving'. You kill 3 to save 6. It's your moral decision to either push the button or not. Either action still makes you a 'player', however. Choosing to stand there and watch means you have chosen to be an amoral agent, does it not?
"Do Good for Good is Good to do. Spurn Bribe of Heaven and Threat of Hell"
- The Kasidah of Haji abdu al-Yezdi
- The Kasidah of Haji abdu al-Yezdi
-
Ernestalice
- Student
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:32 pm
- Location: Japan
Re: God based morals?
Post #8Christians morality is based on 10 Commandments and Jesus teachings. God's will can only be known after the result appeared, not before. Whatever happens, it's the best outcome, at least I think so. Don't you think it's easier to think it so?
If the parents happened to meet science called artificial insemination, it's God's will. I think science itself is God's will. Deciding is always guessing, because we don't know what will happen next. What we can do is just trying our best for the best outcome we thought.
If the parents happened to meet science called artificial insemination, it's God's will. I think science itself is God's will. Deciding is always guessing, because we don't know what will happen next. What we can do is just trying our best for the best outcome we thought.
Post #9
So if a woman is being raped and the only way to save her was to kill her attacker, do you sit on the sidelines because you don't want to play? What if the woman was someone you cared about?Mr.Badham wrote:I find it funny how often people say that "God's morals" are objective, as though the word God is a synonym for the word objective.
God's morals are subjective, because they are his. My morals are subjective because they are mine. Objective morals are objective because everyone agrees to them.
Morality is based in conscent.
For example;
Murder cannot be called assisted suicide.
Slaves cannot be called volunteers.
Theft cannot be called borrowing.
Beating a guy up is immoral, unless you do it in the boxing ring. But even there, there are agreed upon rules. Punching below the belt would be immoral. Nobody agrees to getting punched below the belt.
As for the train issue, I say never push the button, ever. I didn't put the train in motion, I didn't tell the people to stand there. Pushing the button makes me a player
We can screw with these scenarios all day, bottom line is, your decision to do nothing can be made to look (rightly so) like a real jerk.
Point is, your decision to sit on the sidelines is moral bankruptcy.
Re: God based morals?
Post #10How do you, as a catholic, reconcile the fact that the catholic 10 commandments are different then all other non-catholic denominations?Ernestalice wrote:Christians morality is based on 10 Commandments and Jesus teachings. God's will can only be known after the result appeared, not before. Whatever happens, it's the best outcome, at least I think so. Don't you think it's easier to think it so?
If the parents happened to meet science called artificial insemination, it's God's will. I think science itself is God's will. Deciding is always guessing, because we don't know what will happen next. What we can do is just trying our best for the best outcome we thought.
How do you resolve the train dilemma above/ Would you violate you commandments to save a life?
Then how can you possible know it's "god's will"?God's will can only be known after the result appeared, not before.
That's just it, isn't it, its easier, easier doesn't make it right.Don't you think it's easier to think it so?
