Is God necessary for morality?

[Immanuel Can]

Not necessarily the case, Platonic ethics doesn't contradict Christian ethics and vice versa.

I think they do. Maybe you have an example in mind?

Plato's concept of the Form of Goodness itself and his Demiurge, or the creator of the universe.

Well, in Christianity, there is no "form of goodness" in the Platonic sense, and as for the Demiurge, it's pretty much the dead opposite of the Christian God.

So I'm not seeing the comparability there.

There is no evidence in Plato's philosophy that he was a theist or a polytheist,...

Actually, there is. He often uses the expression "gods," and sometimes mentions them in specific. Or, if you take a look at something like the Euthyphro Dilemma, the whole dilemma depends entirely on Euthyphro agreeing with Socrates that there are multiple gods.

Your just assuming that Plato and Kant are internally inconsistent. So far you haven't shown that to be the case.

Kant's easy to show internally inconsistent, as I've pointed out. He has three different CI's, for example. And Plato's even easier.

It is easy to dismiss God and keep morality simply because God doesn't exist.

Non-sequitur. It might be easy to say, but it's far from easy to do. Once you dismiss God, as Nietzsche saw so clearly, you've banished objective morality with Him. So even if we granted the the claim that God was, as you say, a "myth," that would not help you one iota in showing that morality wasn't also a "myth."

Not a non sequitur. If God exists then you have an objective theory of morality, if he doesn't exist then you have an ethic based on a myth. That follows. It is that simple.

I don't disagree. IF there were no God, morality itself would be a myth. But God is not a myth, so morality is objective.

You said earlier that Kant's ethics were objective. Now you say that Plato's were. But Plato has no CI, and Kant had no belief in "the realm of ideal forms." So they contradict each other.

Well, they are similar

Not really.

Is it your idea of the word "objective" that something can be both "objective" and untrue? Because it would have to be, to make sense of your contradicting claims.

My claims are not contradictory...

You didn't answer my question. I'll pose it again: Is it your idea of the word "objective" that something can be both "objective" and untrue?

My definition of objective would be similar to yours.

It seems not. But when you tell me what yours is, I'll be able to confirm that for you. Can something be both "objective," as you understand it, and untrue at the same time?

[Ginkgo]

Well, in Christianity, there is no "form of goodness" in the Platonic sense, and as for the Demiurge, it's pretty much the dead opposite of the Christian God.

So I'm not seeing the comparability there.

Where do you think early scholasticism got their ideas about the Christian God. Plato and Aristotle perhaps?

Actually, there is. He often uses the expression "gods," and sometimes mentions them in specific. Or, if you take a look at something like the Euthyphro Dilemma, the whole dilemma depends entirely on Euthyphro agreeing with Socrates that there are multiple gods.

Please show me the quote from Plato's ethics.

Kant's easy to show internally inconsistent, as I've pointed out. He has three different CI's, for example. And Plato's even easier.

There is only one categorical imperative, it is expressed in three different formulations. They all add up to the same thing.
Please show me were Plato is internally inconsistent.

I don't disagree. IF there were no God, morality itself would be a myth. But God is not a myth, so morality is objective.

And how do you know God is not a myth?

You said earlier that Kant's ethics were objective. Now you say that Plato's were. But Plato has no CI, and Kant had no belief in "the realm of ideal forms." So they contradict each other.

As I said before they are similar in a least one way. Kant believed in an unseen moral law that governs us,what Kant called the apriori. Plato believed that the soul has a previous history of the Forms.

Is it your idea of the word "objective" that something can be both "objective" and untrue? Because it would have to be, to make sense of your contradicting claims.

You didn't answer my question. I'll pose it again: Is it your idea of the word "objective" that something can be both "objective" and untrue?

No. As I've said before my works are not contradictory.

It seems not. But when you tell me what yours is, I'll be able to confirm that for you. Can something be both "objective," as you understand it, and untrue at the same time?

Obviously not.

[Immanuel Can]

Where do you think early scholasticism got their ideas about the Christian God. Plato and Aristotle perhaps?

That's Catholicism. You should ask a Catholic. It's the Catholic tradition that has an ethics link with Aristotle, though I would argue it's not a coherent or plausible tradition anyway. Virtue ethics is seriously defective.

Please show me the quote from Plato's ethics.

Look up "Euthyphro Dilemma," and you'll see it.

There is only one categorical imperative, it is expressed in three different formulations. They all add up to the same thing.

Not at all.

In particular his #2 (called the "humanity" formulation) is completely different from #1 (the "law of nature" formulation), and #3 (the "kingdom of ends" formulation) is more similar to #1 but still vastly different from #2, and not the same as either.

There's a copious literature on this point, and it's one of the most debated issues regarding Kantian ethics. Are you saying you've never heard this?

I don't disagree. IF there were no God, morality itself would be a myth. But God is not a myth, so morality is objective.

And how do you know God is not a myth?

You're missing the point: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying IF. It's a hypothetical. If you wish to assume there's no God, you can...but logic will oblige you to realize that there's no morality anymore then either.

As for God being or not being a myth, it all depends on how seriously you take his self-revelation...in nature, in logic, in the Bible and in the person of Jesus Christ. If those do not convince a person, there's nothing that will.

Kant believed in an unseen moral law that governs us,what Kant called the apriori. Plato believed that the soul has a previous history of the Forms.

That's not quite right, but either way, those are not at all similar. You're going to have to make a better case than that, I would say. Is there anything else you think might tie them together?

Is it your idea of the word "objective" that something can be both "objective" and untrue? Because it would have to be, to make sense of your contradicting claims.

You didn't answer my question. I'll pose it again: Is it your idea of the word "objective" that something can be both "objective" and untrue?

No.

So to clarify: "objective," to you, means also "true"?

[Ginkgo]

That's Catholicism. You should ask a Catholic. It's the Catholic tradition that has an ethics link with Aristotle, though I would argue it's not a coherent or plausible tradition anyway. Virtue ethics is seriously defective.

Yes, but they paved the way for later Christian thinkers, both Catholic and non-Catholic.

Look up "Euthyphro Dilemma," and you'll see it.

I haven't looked up the Euthyphro Dilemma as yet, but from memory it is Plato putting forward the Socratic point of view.

In particular his #2 (called the "humanity" formulation) is completely different from #1 (the "law of nature" formulation), and #3 (the "kingdom of ends" formulation) is more similar to #1 but still vastly different from #2, and not the same as either.

There's a copious literature on this point, and it's one of the most debated issues regarding Kantian ethics. Are you saying you've never heard this?

No, I haven't heard of the debate. If it is one of the hottest debates then there would be lots of philosophers who say Kant's formulations are consistent,
I also say that his formulations are consistent.If there is copious literature on the debate then perhaps you could provide me with a quote that says Kant's formulations are inconsistent.

I don't disagree. IF there were no God, morality itself would be a myth. But God is not a myth, so morality is objective.
You're missing the point: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying IF. It's a hypothetical. If you wish to assume there's no God, you can...but logic will oblige you to realize that there's no morality anymore then either.

Nonsense, if there is no God then we still have secular ethics to fall back on. Christian ethics is not the one and only ethical theory.

As for God being or not being a myth, it all depends on how seriously you take his self-revelation...in nature, in logic, in the Bible and in the person of Jesus Christ. If those do not convince a person, there's nothing that will.

And what logic might that be IC? The cosmological argument and the ontological argument perhaps?

Kant believed in an unseen moral law that governs us,what Kant called the apriori. Plato believed that the soul has a previous history of the Forms.

That's not quite right, but either way, those are not at all similar. You're going to have to make a better case than that, I would say. Is there anything else you think might tie them together?

Both Kant and Plato believed that mathematics are apriori and both Plato and Kant believed in the soul.

Is it your idea of the word "objective" that something can be both "objective" and untrue? Because it would have to be, to make sense of your contradicting claims.

My claims are consistent and definitely mot contradictory.

You didn't answer my question. I'll pose it again: Is it your idea of the word "objective" that something can be both "objective" and untrue? [
So to clarify: "objective," to you, means also "true"?

I'll answer your question as soon as you tell me why Plato's ethics are inconsistent.

[Immanuel Can]

That's Catholicism. You should ask a Catholic. It's the Catholic tradition that has an ethics link with Aristotle, though I would argue it's not a coherent or plausible tradition anyway. Virtue ethics is seriously defective.

Yes, but they paved the way for later Christian thinkers, both Catholic and non-Catholic.

Not at all.

The virtue ethics tradition from Aristotle is actually totally incompatible with the basic beliefs of most non-Catholics. But you'd have to know theology to know that's true.

Look up "Euthyphro Dilemma," and you'll see it.

I haven't looked up the Euthyphro Dilemma as yet, but from memory it is Plato putting forward the Socratic point of view.

The only person who every wrote about Socrates at all was Plato.

In particular his #2 (called the "humanity" formulation) is completely different from #1 (the "law of nature" formulation), and #3 (the "kingdom of ends" formulation) is more similar to #1 but still vastly different from #2, and not the same as either.

There's a copious literature on this point, and it's one of the most debated issues regarding Kantian ethics. Are you saying you've never heard this?

No, I haven't heard of the debate. If it is one of the hottest debates...

Well, it's not "hot." It's stone cold, actually, because it's been settled. Even people who nowadays lean to the Kantian know that the CI had three distinct forms, and nobody has yet been able to propose exactly how to reconcile them. So it's not even really debated anymore.

I don't disagree. IF there were no God, morality itself would be a myth. But God is not a myth, so morality is objective.
You're missing the point: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying IF. It's a hypothetical. If you wish to assume there's no God, you can...but logic will oblige you to realize that there's no morality anymore then either.

Nonsense, if there is no God then we still have secular ethics to fall back on.

There's actually no such single thing as "secular ethics." Instead, there are a bunch of conflicting schools of thought, each campaigning for a different "secular ethics" -- Pragmatism, Emotivism, Intuitionism, Utilitarianism, Neo-Kantianism, Nihilism, Virtue Ethics, Feminist Ethics, Neo-Marxist Ethics, End-of-Ethics Ethics, and so on. There's no secular consensus on what is actually ethical.

As for God being or not being a myth, it all depends on how seriously you take his self-revelation...in nature, in logic, in the Bible and in the person of Jesus Christ. If those do not convince a person, there's nothing that will.

And what logic might that be IC? The cosmological argument and the ontological argument perhaps?

Those are two possible arguments, but there are many more. I was really thinking of the mathematical arguments.

Is it your idea of the word "objective" that something can be both "objective" and untrue? Because it would have to be, to make sense of your contradicting claims.

My claims are consistent and definitely mot contradictory.

You didn't answer my question. I'll pose it again: Is it your idea of the word "objective" that something can be both "objective" and untrue? [
So to clarify: "objective," to you, means also "true"?

I'll answer your question as soon as you tell me why Plato's ethics are inconsistent.

Was that a "Yes"?

You really need to ask about Plato?

Read the Euthyphro Dilemma, and I'll show you from it Socrates himself saying that a) multiple gods exist, b) they disagree about "the good," and c) "the good," whatever it is, is essentially unknowable finally in view of that. Without a concept of "the good," there are no ethics.

[Ginkgo]

The virtue ethics tradition from Aristotle is actually totally incompatible with the basic beliefs of most non-Catholics. But you'd have to know theology to know that's true.

I would have thought that the concept of a good God who was the creator of the universe would be applicable to both Catholic and non-Catholic.

The only person who every wrote about Socrates at all was Plato.

Yes, I know, I just said as much.

Well, it's not "hot." It's stone cold, actually, because it's been settled. Even people who nowadays lean to the Kantian know that the CI had three distinct forms, and nobody has yet been able to propose exactly how to reconcile them. So it's not even really debated anymore.

Sounds like you are just making things up. If it is the case then you know as well I do that issues like this are never settled. Can you provide any evidence for your claim?

I don't disagree. IF there was no God, morality itself would be a myth. But God is not a myth, so morality is objective.
You're missing the point: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying IF. It's a hypothetical. If you wish to assume there's no God, you can...but logic will oblige you to realize that there's no morality anymore then either.

Of course there is still morality if God doesn't exist. You have listed ten ethical theories below. Your claims are becoming more and more bizarre

There's actually no such single thing as "secular ethics." Instead, there are a bunch of conflicting schools of thought, each campaigning for a different "secular ethics" -- Pragmatism, Emotivism, Intuitionism, Utilitarianism, Neo-Kantianism, Nihilism, Virtue Ethics, Feminist Ethics, Neo-Marxist Ethics, End-of-Ethics Ethics, and so on. There's no secular consensus on what is actually ethical.

What you have listed most people would call secular ethics.

Those are two possible arguments, but there are many more. I was really thinking of the mathematical arguments.

What mathematical arguments are you referring to?
BTW You said that Plato's ethics are easy to refute, so please show me how you demonstrate Plato's ethics are inconsistent.

[uwot]

The only person who every wrote about Socrates at all was Plato.

Yes, I know, I just said as much.

Well, let's not forget Xenophon. From a secular point of view, it doesn't matter whether Jesus and Socrates were historical or fictional, what counts are the words attributed to them. So for instance Jesus is reported as saying "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Socrates by contrast said this "I myself know nothing, except just a little, enough to extract an argument from another man who is wise and to receive it fairly." So from a dispassionate position, do you listen to the loudmouth who claims to have all the answers? Or go along with the humble character who admits ignorance?
Christian morality can be boiled down to this: what you do on this planet really doesn't matter. If you accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, you will have an eternity of good stuff, like Cliff Richard on repeat and fish and chips on Friday. Anyone who is up for that can do what the fuck they like, because Jesus died for your sins. (Come on in Herr Hitler. Fuck off Gandhi.) Mr Can, your morality dictates that the only thing you will be punished for is not being grateful.

[Immanuel Can]

The virtue ethics tradition from Aristotle is actually totally incompatible with the basic beliefs of most non-Catholics. But you'd have to know theology to know that's true.

I would have thought that the concept of a good God who was the creator of the universe would be applicable to both Catholic and non-Catholic.

It is. But that's not what you were talking about. You were saying that all Christians are indebted to the Aristotelian tradition.

They're not.

The only person who every wrote about Socrates at all was Plato.

Yes, I know, I just said as much.

Well, it's not "hot." It's stone cold, actually, because it's been settled. Even people who nowadays lean to the Kantian know that the CI had three distinct forms, and nobody has yet been able to propose exactly how to reconcile them. So it's not even really debated anymore.

Sounds like you are just making things up. If it is the case then you know as well I do that issues like this are never settled. Can you provide any evidence for your claim?

My claim that Kant wrote three different CI's? Sure. But you should know that yourself, if you know Kant at all.

https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class ... orical.htm

Look under "formulas not equivalent," in particular.

I don't disagree. IF there was no God, morality itself would be a myth. But God is not a myth, so morality is objective.
You're missing the point: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying IF. It's a hypothetical. If you wish to assume there's no God, you can...but logic will oblige you to realize that there's no morality anymore then either.

Of course there is still morality if God doesn't exist. You have listed ten ethical theories below.

Sure, men make all kinds of tries at formulating theories of ethics. But they're all just made up, and not one of them can gain the upper hand over the others, and they all contradict. That shows you that not any of them has discovered the key to objective, universal morality. The truth is that right now, secular ethics is one huge dead end in unresolvable controversies.

There's actually no such single thing as "secular ethics." Instead, there are a bunch of conflicting schools of thought, each campaigning for a different "secular ethics" -- Pragmatism, Emotivism, Intuitionism, Utilitarianism, Neo-Kantianism, Nihilism, Virtue Ethics, Feminist Ethics, Neo-Marxist Ethics, End-of-Ethics Ethics, and so on. There's no secular consensus on what is actually ethical.

What you have listed most people would call secular ethics.

They are attempts. They are also all failures. And they contradict each other, too.

BTW You said that Plato's ethics are easy to refute, so please show me how you demonstrate Plato's ethics are inconsistent.

Have you read Euthyphro yet? That's what I pointed you to.

[henry quirk]

If morality is sumthin' more than opinion or consensus, yeah, he is.

[uwot]

There's actually no such single thing as "secular ethics."

Nor is there any such single thing as religious ethics.

There's no secular consensus on what is actually ethical.

Just as there is no religious consensus. The thing religious people have in common is that they all think their god is like them, and therefore they are more like god than anyone else. What is particularly disturbing about Mr Can is that he insists that people who do not believe him will be tortured forever; which tells you everything you need to know about Mr Can.

[uwot]

If morality is sumthin' more than opinion or consensus, yeah, he is.

Anyone who believes that is half way to being duped by one of the crappier arguments for god. All the arguments for god are crap, which doesn't prove some god doesn't exist, but this one is laughable:
Only god makes morality objective.
Morality is objective.
Therefore god exists.

[Belinda]

The only person who every wrote about Socrates at all was Plato.

Yes, I know, I just said as much.

Well, let's not forget Xenophon. From a secular point of view, it doesn't matter whether Jesus and Socrates were historical or fictional, what counts are the words attributed to them. So for instance Jesus is reported as saying "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Socrates by contrast said this "I myself know nothing, except just a little, enough to extract an argument from another man who is wise and to receive it fairly." So from a dispassionate position, do you listen to the loudmouth who claims to have all the answers? Or go along with the humble character who admits ignorance?
Christian morality can be boiled down to this: what you do on this planet really doesn't matter. If you accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, you will have an eternity of good stuff, like Cliff Richard on repeat and fish and chips on Friday. Anyone who is up for that can do what the fuck they like, because Jesus died for your sins. (Come on in Herr Hitler. Fuck off Gandhi.) Mr Can, your morality dictates that the only thing you will be punished for is not being grateful.

Uwot, I otherwise interpret "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.". I interpret the saying as meaning ontic Good can't be known except via events in lives lived. Jesus also said "Why do you call me good? There is none good but the Father."

Xianity can flourish as a life-enhancing moral philosophy in this world where we have now to contend with environmental disaster. But only if Xianity adapts to situations and Jesus Christ is a moveable icon. Fundamentalism such as Immanuel Can endorses does not further the duration of Xianity.

[Ginkgo]

I would have thought that the concept of a good God who was the creator of the universe would be applicable to both Catholic and non-Catholic.

It is. But that's not what you were talking about. You were saying that all Christians are indebted to the Aristotelian tradition.
They're not.

Actually, they are. What I said was Christians are indebted to both Aristotle and Plato. Aristotle was the first philosopher to come up with the Cosmological argument, an argument you endorse. Nonetheless, I am interested in you claim that you can prove the existence of God with mathematics, could you provide me with an example of the mathematics?

Well, it's not "hot." It's stone cold, actually, because it's been settled. Even people who nowadays lean to the Kantian know that the CI had three distinct forms, and nobody has yet been able to propose exactly how to reconcile them. So it's not even really debated anymore.
My claim that Kant wrote three different CI's? Sure. But you should know that yourself, if you know Kant at all.

https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class ... orical.htm

Look under "formulas not equivalent," in particular.

As I said before, these types of arguments are never settled to the satisfaction of everyone, there will be philosophers who say Kant's formulations are consistent.

Sure, men make all kinds of tries at formulating theories of ethics. But they're all just made up, and not one of them can gain the upper hand over the others, and they all contradict. That shows you that not any of them has discovered the key to objective, universal morality. The truth is that right now, secular ethics is one huge dead end in unresolvable controversy.

God and his universal morality is a myth, that being the case, all there is secular ethics.

BTW You said that Plato's ethics are easy to refute, so please show me how you demonstrate Plato's ethics are inconsistent.

Have you read Euthyphro yet? That's what I pointed you to.

The Euthyphro Dilemma has nothing to do with Plato's ethics. I am talking about Plato's ethics, as formulated in the "Republic". I am still interested in you refuting Plato's ethics.

[uwot]

Xianity can flourish as a life-enhancing moral philosophy in this world where we have now to contend with environmental disaster. But only if Xianity adapts to situations and Jesus Christ is a moveable icon.

Personally I find the idea that someone else can pay for my wickedness morally bankrupt, but I can see why some people would find that appealing. Jesus Christ has always been a moveable icon. It's just like Xenophanes said:

“The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.”

Same with JC. To Ethiopian christians, Jesus is "flat-nosed and black". God (almost certainly) did not create us 'in his image', it is people who wish to believe who create their god in their image. Bear in mind that the Jesus Mr Can worships is the same idol of the KKK.

Fundamentalism such as Immanuel Can endorses does not further the duration of Xianity.

Mr Can's particular brand of christianity will die when he does. While that will be a loss to his loved ones, christianity will survive.

[henry quirk]

If morality is sumthin' more than opinion or consensus, yeah, he is.

Anyone who believes that is half way to being duped by one of the crappier arguments for god. All the arguments for god are crap, which doesn't prove some god doesn't exist, but this one is laughable:
Only god makes morality objective.
Morality is objective.
Therefore god exists.

Too late!

I duped myself into deism a while back.