Philosophy Now Forum

Many theists claim that without god, there would be no morality. Somehow, they claim that a god is a source of morality; yet, they never explain why this is the case. Plus, we know from philosophical arguments that are quite old that no supernatural god can be a source of morality. If god does an act, is it moral simply because god did it? If the answer is yes, then the morality that comes from god is arbitrary and based on nothing more than the random whims of a powerful being. This is simply the religious person claiming that "might makes right," which is itself immoral. On the other hand, if god does an act because the act is good, then that would mean god had a reason for the act and was adhering to an external standard of morality. People can then refer to that external standard, and do not need god.

The believer who claims morality comes from god; therefore, engages in the immoral conduct of foresaking a rational inquiry in how to behave in exchange for the blind adherence to an alleged revelation, typically interpreted by some religious leader. Not thinking is a sure recipe for disaster.

ForgedinHell wrote:Many theists claim that without god, there would be no morality. Somehow, they claim that a god is a source of morality; yet, they never explain why this is the case. Plus, we know from philosophical arguments that are quite old that no supernatural god can be a source of morality. If god does an act, is it moral simply because god did it? If the answer is yes, then the morality that comes from god is arbitrary and based on nothing more than the random whims of a powerful being. This is simply the religious person claiming that "might makes right," which is itself immoral. On the other hand, if god does an act because the act is good, then that would mean god had a reason for the act and was adhering to an external standard of morality. People can then refer to that external standard, and do not need god.

The believer who claims morality comes from god; therefore, engages in the immoral conduct of foresaking a rational inquiry in how to behave in exchange for the blind adherence to an alleged revelation, typically interpreted by some religious leader. Not thinking is a sure recipe for disaster.

"God" which many theists refer to "might" be the pure rational being. We, as human being, are not perfect rational beings so that we act by not only obligation but also inclination. That's the reason why we need God to give us categorical imperative.

ForgedinHell wrote:Somehow, they claim that a god is a source of morality; yet, they never explain why this is the case.

Let me put it in this way, there's a source of morality and it's perfect pure rational beings. We need to give this kind of source a name, that is god.

ForgedinHell wrote:If god does an act, is it moral simply because god did it? If the answer is yes, then the morality that comes from god is arbitrary and based on nothing more than the random whims of a powerful being.

The answer, yes, doesn't mean god is arbitrary and based on nothing more than the random whims of a powerful being. You can not make this overstatement simply because of the answer, yes.
Most of people believe that the reason why god did it is simply good and ... that's it! People seldom think about how god judges right and wrong and just believe god is absolutely right.
As to the question, why does god know what "good" is?, it's hard to know the reason. You can say that people just "blindly believe it's absolutely good" and no one ever know how to justify that.

Ethan wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:Many theists claim that without god, there would be no morality. Somehow, they claim that a god is a source of morality; yet, they never explain why this is the case. Plus, we know from philosophical arguments that are quite old that no supernatural god can be a source of morality. If god does an act, is it moral simply because god did it? If the answer is yes, then the morality that comes from god is arbitrary and based on nothing more than the random whims of a powerful being. This is simply the religious person claiming that "might makes right," which is itself immoral. On the other hand, if god does an act because the act is good, then that would mean god had a reason for the act and was adhering to an external standard of morality. People can then refer to that external standard, and do not need god.

The believer who claims morality comes from god; therefore, engages in the immoral conduct of foresaking a rational inquiry in how to behave in exchange for the blind adherence to an alleged revelation, typically interpreted by some religious leader. Not thinking is a sure recipe for disaster.

"God" which many theists refer to "might" be the pure rational being. We, as human being, are not perfect rational beings so that we act by not only obligation but also inclination. That's the reason why we need God to give us categorical imperative.

ForgedinHell wrote:Somehow, they claim that a god is a source of morality; yet, they never explain why this is the case.

Let me put it in this way, there's a source of morality and it's perfect pure rational beings. We need to give this kind of source a name, that is god.

ForgedinHell wrote:If god does an act, is it moral simply because god did it? If the answer is yes, then the morality that comes from god is arbitrary and based on nothing more than the random whims of a powerful being.

The answer, yes, doesn't mean god is arbitrary and based on nothing more than the random whims of a powerful being. You can not make this overstatement simply because of the answer, yes.
Most of people believe that the reason why god did it is simply good and ... that's it! People seldom think about how god judges right and wrong and just believe god is absolutely right.
As to the question, why does god know what "good" is?, it's hard to know the reason. You can say that people just "blindly believe it's absolutely good" and no one ever know how to justify that.

Even if a god were purely rational, that would not mean it was purely moral. Put it this way, if morality were solely an intellectual question, then why after thousands of years, philosophy has failed to solve a single problem regarding morality? Even if we assumed the existence of some rational god, which is a huge assumption, how would that prove that such a god were moral? It wouldn't.

ForgedinHell wrote:

Ethan wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:Many theists claim that without god, there would be no morality. Somehow, they claim that a god is a source of morality; yet, they never explain why this is the case. Plus, we know from philosophical arguments that are quite old that no supernatural god can be a source of morality. If god does an act, is it moral simply because god did it? If the answer is yes, then the morality that comes from god is arbitrary and based on nothing more than the random whims of a powerful being. This is simply the religious person claiming that "might makes right," which is itself immoral. On the other hand, if god does an act because the act is good, then that would mean god had a reason for the act and was adhering to an external standard of morality. People can then refer to that external standard, and do not need god.

The believer who claims morality comes from god; therefore, engages in the immoral conduct of foresaking a rational inquiry in how to behave in exchange for the blind adherence to an alleged revelation, typically interpreted by some religious leader. Not thinking is a sure recipe for disaster.

"God" which many theists refer to "might" be the pure rational being. We, as human being, are not perfect rational beings so that we act by not only obligation but also inclination. That's the reason why we need God to give us categorical imperative.

ForgedinHell wrote:Somehow, they claim that a god is a source of morality; yet, they never explain why this is the case.

Let me put it in this way, there's a source of morality and it's perfect pure rational beings. We need to give this kind of source a name, that is god.

ForgedinHell wrote:If god does an act, is it moral simply because god did it? If the answer is yes, then the morality that comes from god is arbitrary and based on nothing more than the random whims of a powerful being.

The answer, yes, doesn't mean god is arbitrary and based on nothing more than the random whims of a powerful being. You can not make this overstatement simply because of the answer, yes.
Most of people believe that the reason why god did it is simply good and ... that's it! People seldom think about how god judges right and wrong and just believe god is absolutely right.
As to the question, why does god know what "good" is?, it's hard to know the reason. You can say that people just "blindly believe it's absolutely good" and no one ever know how to justify that.

Even if a god were purely rational, that would not mean it was purely moral. Put it this way, if morality were solely an intellectual question, then why after thousands of years, philosophy has failed to solve a single problem regarding morality? Even if we assumed the existence of some rational god, which is a huge assumption, how would that prove that such a god were moral? It wouldn't.

Hello, I suggest you study more philosopher's book before you make some conclusions.
You can read Immaneul Kant's book, Kant's Groundwork of metaphysics of morals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork ... _of_Morals

I start to study it recently and I think it may help you to understand your question deeply.

Ethan wrote:
Hello, I suggest you study more philosopher's book before you make some conclusions.
You can read Immaneul Kant's book, Kant's Groundwork of metaphysics of morals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork ... _of_Morals

I start to study it recently and I think it may help you to understand your question deeply.

Asking me to study crap, like Kant, doesn't cut it. I could say the same, study some book on so and so, before you comment again. How does that count for debating? It doesn't. It's the excuse people often resort to when they have no argument, but don't want to admit they have been stumped.

Kant did not solve any moral questions, and under his morality, if someone were hiding Jews in the basement during WWII, if nazis knocked on the door, they would not be able to lie to the nazis, but would have to respect them and turn the Jews over. While Chaz, the raving lunatic, who believes that the Jews control the US economy, may get a hard-on for such morality, I don't. Lying can be quite moral depending on the circumstances.

When you see a starving child, actually look her in the eyes, and actually listen to her crying, do you stop to rationally think what should be done? I sure as hell don't. I feel really bad for her and try to help. Rational thinking has squat to do with it. Too many people who study philosophy have forgotten their own humanity. Ethics is more a matter of feeling than thinking. The point is that there has been far too much "thinking" on the topic of morality when people would be better off searching their feelings. Even Darth Vader knew this. "Search your feelings Luke, I am your father...."

ForgedinHell wrote:

Ethan wrote:
Hello, I suggest you study more philosopher's book before you make some conclusions.
You can read Immaneul Kant's book, Kant's Groundwork of metaphysics of morals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork ... _of_Morals

I start to study it recently and I think it may help you to understand your question deeply.

Asking me to study crap, like Kant, doesn't cut it. I could say the same, study some book on so and so, before you comment again. How does that count for debating? It doesn't. It's the excuse people often resort to when they have no argument, but don't want to admit they have been stumped.

I agree with you. That doesn't count for debating and I admit I've been stumped.
I didn't notice you would care if I admit I've been stumped. I just think it doesn't matter. All we need to do is find the answer, so I tell you some approaches to find the answer.

ForgedinHell wrote: Kant did not solve any moral questions, and under his morality, if someone were hiding Jews in the basement during WWII, if nazis knocked on the door, they would not be able to lie to the nazis, but would have to respect them and turn the Jews over. While Chaz, the raving lunatic, who believes that the Jews control the US economy, may get a hard-on for such morality, I don't. Lying can be quite moral depending on the circumstances.

Kant did insist that human shall not lie and we have to tell the truth.
In the case you mentioned, we can tell the nazis inductive truth. For example, we can say I really don't know where Jews is because, strictly speaking, we really don't know what the Jews' position exactly is.(although it sounds ridiculous)

ForgedinHell wrote: When you see a starving child, actually look her in the eyes, and actually listen to her crying, do you stop to rationally think what should be done? I sure as hell don't. I feel really bad for her and try to help.

Hmm, I will stop to rationally think what should be done. (I've done that before and I'll keep doing that)
I think all human are equal because there's no difference between human beings. The child's happiness is as important as mine and I believe those people who don't realize this concept will be more unhappy than those who realize it. So, I'll have stop and try to help the child He/She needs help because he/she is not as lucky as others.

ForgedinHell wrote: Rational thinking has squat to do with it. Too many people who study philosophy have forgotten their own humanity.

I think the object of ethics is what "ought to happen" rather than "what happened".
So, I think it's okay to forget humanity unless the necessity and universality of morality is based on humanity.

ForgedinHell wrote: Ethics is more a matter of feeling than thinking. The point is that there has been far too much "thinking" on the topic of morality when people would be better off searching their feelings. Even Darth Vader knew this. "Search your feelings Luke, I am your father...."

The law of morality should not based on feelings because that will make the law of morality lose the necessity and universality.
The feelings of human beings is varied from space and time. So, ANY EMPIRICAL thoughts or feelings won't be the ground of the law of morality which needs necessity and universality.

Ethan wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:

Ethan wrote:
Hello, I suggest you study more philosopher's book before you make some conclusions.
You can read Immaneul Kant's book, Kant's Groundwork of metaphysics of morals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork ... _of_Morals

I start to study it recently and I think it may help you to understand your question deeply.

Asking me to study crap, like Kant, doesn't cut it. I could say the same, study some book on so and so, before you comment again. How does that count for debating? It doesn't. It's the excuse people often resort to when they have no argument, but don't want to admit they have been stumped.

I agree with you. That doesn't count for debating and I admit I've been stumped.
I didn't notice you would care if I admit I've been stumped. I just think it doesn't matter. All we need to do is find the answer, so I tell you some approaches to find the answer.

ForgedinHell wrote: Kant did not solve any moral questions, and under his morality, if someone were hiding Jews in the basement during WWII, if nazis knocked on the door, they would not be able to lie to the nazis, but would have to respect them and turn the Jews over. While Chaz, the raving lunatic, who believes that the Jews control the US economy, may get a hard-on for such morality, I don't. Lying can be quite moral depending on the circumstances.

Kant did insist that human shall not lie and we have to tell the truth.
In the case you mentioned, we can tell the nazis inductive truth. For example, we can say I really don't know where Jews is because, strictly speaking, we really don't know what the Jews' position exactly is.(although it sounds ridiculous)

ForgedinHell wrote: When you see a starving child, actually look her in the eyes, and actually listen to her crying, do you stop to rationally think what should be done? I sure as hell don't. I feel really bad for her and try to help.

Hmm, I will stop to rationally think what should be done. (I've done that before and I'll keep doing that)
I think all human are equal because there's no difference between human beings. The child's happiness is as important as mine and I believe those people who don't realize this concept will be more unhappy than those who realize it. So, I'll have stop and try to help the child He/She needs help because he/she is not as lucky as others.

ForgedinHell wrote: Rational thinking has squat to do with it. Too many people who study philosophy have forgotten their own humanity.

I think the object of ethics is what "ought to happen" rather than "what happened".
So, I think it's okay to forget humanity unless the necessity and universality of morality is based on humanity.

ForgedinHell wrote: Ethics is more a matter of feeling than thinking. The point is that there has been far too much "thinking" on the topic of morality when people would be better off searching their feelings. Even Darth Vader knew this. "Search your feelings Luke, I am your father...."

The law of morality should not based on feelings because that will make the law of morality lose the necessity and universality.
The feelings of human beings is varied from space and time. So, ANY EMPIRICAL thoughts or feelings won't be the ground of the law of morality which needs necessity and universality.

Morality does come from feelings though. You really think Kant didn't first feel what was right, and then spent loads of wasted time writing an intellectual justification for what he felt? That's one of the reasons philosophy is so lame. It is supposed to give insights on morality, and it encourages people to do the one thing that is going to cause people to be moral idiots -- to stop feeling and start thinking. Philosophers have missed the mark for centuries, while popular writers have hit the mark. Why do you think that is? It's because the writers rely on their emotions more on moral issues. I don't even trust people who are out of touch with their feelings.

ForgedinHell wrote:... If the answer is yes [it must be moral because god did it], then the morality that comes from god is arbitrary and based on nothing more than the random whims of a powerful being.

Only if you believe that God makes arbitrary decisions on a random whim. You need to prove that God must do that for your inference here to succeed, Forgy.

On the other hand, if god does an act because the act is good, then that would mean god had a reason for the act and was adhering to an external standard of morality.

What would be the objection to God having a reason to adhere to a God-given standard of morality?

mickthinks wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:... If the answer is yes [it must be moral because god did it], then the morality that comes from god is arbitrary and based on nothing more than the random whims of a powerful being.

Only if you believe that God makes arbitrary decisions on a random whim. You need to prove that God must do that for your inference here to succeed, Forgy.

The statement was conditional, that's why it began with an "if". So, what do I need to prove to make my point?

On the other hand, if god does an act because the act is good, then that would mean god had a reason for the act and was adhering to an external standard of morality.

What would be the objection to God having a reason to adhere to a God-given standard of morality?

There would be no objection, but it would show we don't need a god for our morals. Just like god, we would just look to the reason for an answer. So, why bother with a useless belief in god when it is not needed?

ForgedinHell wrote:There would be no objection [to God having a reason to adhere to a God-given standard of morality], but it would show we don't need a god for our morals. Just like god, we would just look to the reason for an answer.

Except that, without a God-given standard, there might not be an answer for Reason to find. What would be the question?

Just like god, we would just look to the reason for an answer.

lol God is generally believed to know a lot more than we do, Forgy. Without God's knowledge it is impossible to reason 'just like God'.

... So, what do I need to prove to make my point?
I don't think you can prove your point, Forgy. I think your belief is a mistaken one which is based on a poor understanding of the issues.

mickthinks wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:There would be no objection [to God having a reason to adhere to a God-given standard of morality], but it would show we don't need a god for our morals. Just like god, we would just look to the reason for an answer.

Except that, without a God-given standard, there might not be an answer for Reason to find. What would be the question?

Just like god, we would just look to the reason for an answer.

lol God is generally believed to know a lot more than we do, Forgy. Without God's knowledge it is impossible to reason 'just like God'.

... So, what do I need to prove to make my point?
I don't think you can prove your point, Forgy. I think your belief is a mistaken one which is based on a poor understanding of the issues.

God doesn't exist, and if god was so smart, then why is it that in every work attributed to god, or the gods, we find not a single shred of a higher intelligence at work? There is nothing in the torah, new testament, koran, etc., that was not known by ancient people and could not have been written by them without any divine intervention at all. Before one claims that a god exists, and god is highly intelligent, don't you think one should have at least a small smattering of some evidence for such claims?

ForgedinHell wrote:God doesn't exist ...

Many people disagree with you. Your argument (your only argument, it seems) boils down to this: it is immoral to disagree with you about matters of religion, because you are right.

I guess you don't really understand the concept of philosophical argument at all, Forgy.

The need for morality, and morality itself, emerges from the simple fact that other people exist; when we realise and accept that to other people we are other people too. This is something we all share, that we are other people to each other. Morals is about how we treat each other.

A belief can't be immoral unless you act immorally upon it, and even then it's not the belief itself that is immoral, but your actions.

ForgedinHell wrote:Morality does come from feelings though. You really think Kant didn't first feel what was right, and then spent loads of wasted time writing an intellectual justification for what he felt? That's one of the reasons philosophy is so lame. It is supposed to give insights on morality, and it encourages people to do the one thing that is going to cause people to be moral idiots -- to stop feeling and start thinking. Philosophers have missed the mark for centuries, while popular writers have hit the mark. Why do you think that is? It's because the writers rely on their emotions more on moral issues. I don't even trust people who are out of touch with their feelings.

No, morality does not come from feelings. What you're talking about is a kind of worldly meaning of morality which is really useless.
Morality is a supreme principle of law. The importance and validity of morality relies on its universality and necessity.

Here are two arguments from Kant:
(i) If we ground morality in experience, we give up universality and necessity.
(ii) We cannot give up universality and necessity.

Therefore, morality cannot be grounded in experience. (and what you mentioned, feelings.)

Empirical principles are not at all fit to be the ground of moral laws. For the universality with which these are to hold for
all rational beings without distinction - the unconditional practical necessity which is thereby imposed upon them - comes to
nothing if their ground is taken from the special constitution of human nature or the contingent circumstances in which it is placed.
-- Immaneul Kant

You need to think about those arguments from Kant before you make conclusions.

I really suggest you read philosophers' books and use your brain to think over every thought you have about morality.

Ethan wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:Morality does come from feelings though. You really think Kant didn't first feel what was right, and then spent loads of wasted time writing an intellectual justification for what he felt? That's one of the reasons philosophy is so lame. It is supposed to give insights on morality, and it encourages people to do the one thing that is going to cause people to be moral idiots -- to stop feeling and start thinking. Philosophers have missed the mark for centuries, while popular writers have hit the mark. Why do you think that is? It's because the writers rely on their emotions more on moral issues. I don't even trust people who are out of touch with their feelings.

No, morality does not come from feelings. What you're talking about is a kind of worldly meaning of morality which is really useless.
Morality is a supreme principle of law. The importance and validity of morality relies on its universality and necessity.

Here are two arguments from Kant:
(i) If we ground morality in experience, we give up universality and necessity.
(ii) We cannot give up universality and necessity.

Therefore, morality cannot be grounded in experience. (and what you mentioned, feelings.)

Empirical principles are not at all fit to be the ground of moral laws. For the universality with which these are to hold for
all rational beings without distinction - the unconditional practical necessity which is thereby imposed upon them - comes to
nothing if their ground is taken from the special constitution of human nature or the contingent circumstances in which it is placed.
-- Immaneul Kant

You need to think about those arguments from Kant before you make conclusions.

I really suggest you read philosophers' books and use your brain to think over every thought you have about morality.

LOL. You really, seriously think Kant proved anything by those two assertions? Tell those two assertions to any trained scientist, and after they get done laughing at you, they will explain to you that those statements are just non-sensical gibberish that prove nothing. That's the problem with philosophy. It places nonsense, not just on stilts, but on a podium.