Refuting god as the source of morality.

[DanDare]

Glob, we are drifting into The Moral Landscape territory.

[wearestardust]

Originally Posted by rayne

We may have a moral consensus on "Killing is wrong" in Western society but on an individual level this may differ. Person A may say "Killing is wrong except in certain circumstances" Person B may disagree with those specific circumstances and insert their own.

Yes but there is a considerable difference between the views that:

1. it is possible to have a dialogue about the position and form a view as to which is a preferable position

2. both are right; or, at least, neither is wrong.

[Strato]

The moral consensus on killing in the West, written into statute Law, is to ensure security, peace and freedom, for the individual to be able to pursue what they see as good. And for their progeny to enjoy the same, in perpetuity.

The death penalty in the US, I cannot reconcile, with anything enlightened. It has its underpinnings in Christianity, as does Islamic justice codices. They have their basis in decrees of an omnipotent, unconstrained and vengeful god.

[rayne]

But morality isn't always reflected in legislation. Same sex marriage is still illegal in Australia which is discrimination against a community. Not exactly the definition of morality.

[wearestardust]

and indeed on the whole we don't want morals legislated for. At least I think so.

[Strato]

Absolutely.

[Strato]

Months ago I clicked off a message to the Richard Dawkins Foundation to say I would value a book by the good prof. on the Darwinian explanation of the human moral sensibility.

I related David Hume expostulating on this head in "A Treatise Of Human Nature" (1739-40),[where he asserts you can't derive an 'ought from an is' (Hume's law)]. A theme on this question on the moral nature is the idea of 'sympathy'.

I think Dawkins could nail it pretty well.

[Loki]

Gorillas Seen Destroying Poachers' Snares In Rwanda

Stories of intelligent, empathy and morality in non-human animals do tend to point to the vacuity of the "god, therefore morality" wibble.

How can theistic morality be "absolute" when it is dependent on the subjective whim of a diety.

Why is morality predicated on an ideal like "least harm" not considered "objective" by theists when choices can be objectively measured against the ideal?

[Strato]

This applies in psychology as well. I read a book when I was a teenager, "The Hidden Persuaders" about psychology in advertising, big tobacco, etc.
The Hippocratic oath pretty much carries the idea below. The old Greeks, once again. This is based on human reason. "Hippocrates (of Cos, 460-370BCE) is credited with being the first person to believe that diseases were caused naturally, not by superstition and gods." The full article is worth a read.

Primum non nocere From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Primum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means "First, do no harm". The phrase is sometimes recorded as primum nil nocere.
Non-maleficence, which is derived from the maxim, is one of the principal precepts of medical ethics that all medical students are taught in medical school and is a fundamental principle for emergency medical services around the world. Another way to state it is that "given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good." It reminds the physician and other health care providers that they must consider the possible harm that any intervention might do. It is invoked when debating the use of an intervention that carries an obvious risk of harm but a less certain chance of benefit.
Non-maleficence is often contrasted with its corollary, beneficence."

[yrtemmyscirtemmysa]

Originally Posted by Glob

I recently told a Muslim that there are some things that are not good, even if Allah says they are good. The Muslim replied: "whatever Allah says is good, is good." I asked: "so if Allah were to say that it is good to torture, rape and murder innocent infants wherever the opportunity arises, would it good to do so?" The Muslim looked me straight in the eye and replied: "Yes".

Feelings of disgust etc. aside, how would you respond? I honestly cannot think of anything to say. It seems like the end of the debate to me.

I will have a stab at this, think of muslims as believers in the Old testament in this present time, lets pretend the exodus account did happen, god used fear tactics yet reassured Moses and his followers that they will acquire the land of milk and honey (Moses, Aaron and his son's weren't so fortunate), why did god use only people of some royal power and fear tactics for those to do his will? Because god is not a moral agent, god did not fit in, commanding fear tactics and force is the only means possible for a mass moral lapse. We know that morals are a human trait and if a deity did exist it did not behave in a human manner. I would deviate from discussing allah and morals because they have been mouth feed the same thing over and over again and just don't know any better, which ever way you explain it they see you as an enemy, in my opinion its better to discuss something that muslims understand, like why the quran requires human interpretations (hadiths) and who sets the standards for islam.

As for human moral values, moral fabrics evolved and are held together by society, they are shaped by our actions and while we continue to slowly change how we think since cavemen, so will our morals, this is a sociological aspect of morals being subjective.