"ALL moral standards and values are man-made"

[Unrepresented]

All moral standards and values and all gods are man-made.

 

[soot]

Your reason implies that it's society who determines what's bad and wrong through government. If you can get enough people to vote a certain way, then you can change morals to be whatever you want.....so that cannot really determine what's right and wrong.

Absolutely.

In America, today, it is considered "immoral" to marry and have sex with children below a certain age, or to use children of the same gender as sex toys, or to have sex with animals.

It's illegal to do those things, but it's also considered immoral.

There was a time in America when it was perfectly legal and moral for grown men to marry and have sex with 14-year-old girls.

There are countries in the world today where all of the things I mentioned are considered both legal and moral.

Or, if morality is determined by what's the most beneficial to the most number of people, then we shouldn't help the sick or the weak - since letting them die out is the most beneficial to the most numbers of people. By killing them, we could also be doing them a favor.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that most of us are going to get old.

It's also a fact of life that self-preservation is an inherent aspect of all life.

In order to pass the laws you're talking about the majority of people, knowing that they will one day get old and likely sick, would have to willingly sign their own death warrant.

Isn't gonna happen.

Homosexuals would also have to belong to that group since they don't benefit the species in the way of reproduction.

Same thing for childless couples I guess? Or the celibate clergy?

There are more ways for people to contribute to society, many more ways, than by just procreating.








So, it is flexible. It can change. What's "bad" today maybe "good" tomorrow.

That doesn't really determine what's bad and wrong.

 

[Quag]

Absolutely.

In America, today, it is considered "immoral" to marry and have sex with children below a certain age, or to use children of the same gender as sex toys, or to have sex with animals.

It's illegal to do those things, but it's also considered immoral.

There was a time in America when it was perfectly legal and moral for grown men to marry and have sex with 14-year-old girls.

There are countries in the world today where all of the things I mentioned are considered both legal and moral.

Disagree. It is generally considered immoral to chat on your spouse but it is not illegal
It is illegal to smoke pot (not everywhere anymore) but it is no longer considered immoral by a large % of the population.

Laws do not equate to morality, they can go together but not necessarily

 

[soot]

Disagree. It is generally considered immoral to chat on your spouse but it is not illegal
It is illegal to smoke pot (not everywhere anymore) but it is no longer considered immoral by a large % of the population.

Laws do not equate to morality, they can go together but not necessarily

I agree.

Good point.

I wasn't suggesting that laws=morality=laws and that there was no other standard for what we consider right or wrong.

The way we legislate and govern ourselves is a function of what we, as a society, agree to as being "good" and/or "bad", but as you've illustrated there's a good deal more to it.

I think I kind of got hung up on the whole "shoot some guy in the face just because" example and went about addressing this from a legal perspective.

It's "wrong" to eat all of my kid's Halloween candy but not because God said so and not because it's illegal.

Good post.

 

[Ikari]

Though the concept originally depended upon an appeal to God

The concept was often discussed as arising from gods, but it did not universally depend on gods. Kant argued that natural rights are understood through intelligence and reason alone, no gods necessary.

 

[PoS]

That's what Hard Truth had claimed in another section.

I'm saying, God is the basis for all morals - it's the standard from which moral values are based.

Whats funny is that religionists say that god is the basis for all morals yet god doesnt follow any of his own commandments in the bible- he kills whole cities, murders babies in their sleep, causes plagues, tortures his followers for fun, etc.

 

[Chagos]

I could think of more mitigating circumstances, were the victim shot in the butt.

On grounds of him or her having continuously been such a pain in the same for others, that it was time to convey what the receiving end feels like.

:2razz:

 

[tosca1]

Exodus 21:20-21

"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.…"

The real question is, do you find this moral?

Keep to the subject - read the OP.

 

[roughdraft274]

Keep to the subject - read the OP.

It's directly on topic. If values aren't man made and they are handed down by god, then what ever god tells you that you can do must be moral, and therefor slavery is moral and you can beat your slave as long as they don't die right away. Do you believe this? Or do you think that morality doesn't come from god and this is immoral?

 

[tosca1]

It doesn't apply.

Soot is speaking from inside a "framework". You know that.
Absent said "framework, you shooting someone in the face is just an action and is neither good, bad/evil, right/wrong.

There is no universal morality. It is all based on beliefs which are man made.

No, you can't say an action is neither good or bad when we label actions as such! So your argument doesn't apply. It's not realistic.

 

[tosca1]

In antiquity it was believed that there was a "natural law" which imposed obligations upon the individual (such as being a good and contributing member of society, defending the homeland, and such).

The concept of natural (or inalienable, or self-evident, or human) rights (as opposed to obligations) arose during the Enlightenment as a means of challenging the concept of the Divine Right of Kings, which essentially held that kings were bound by no earthly authority and could, consequently, do whatever they wanted and treat people (their subjects) however they wanted.

Natural rights, the most fundamental human rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property, depending upon which point in the developing conversation on natural rights you happen to jump in on), it was proposed, were God-given to people as a natural consequence of being people, as opposed to being something that could be given or taken away by other people.

As such these rights couldn't be usurped by a monarch/sovereign who, while not bound by any earthly law, was subject to the laws of God[/COLOR].

When we (here in America but later in Europe and then all over the world) began to transition away from monarchies we maintained the concept of God-given natural rights.

Basically natural rights are rights because we, the people, say they are.

Anyway....I forgot why I asked Ikari. It might be because I was perplexed as to what it has to do with the question in the OP.

 

[tosca1]

It's directly on topic. If values aren't man made and they are handed down by god, then what ever god tells you that you can do must be moral, and therefor slavery is moral and you can beat your slave as long as they don't die right away. Do you believe this? Or do you think that morality doesn't come from god and this is immoral?

That isn't the subject. You are questioning whether God is moral or not.

And you are providing Biblical verses as your argument - and that requires Biblical studies. There are a lot of verses that are taken in as is but upon studying it, gives understanding as to what is actually meant, or/and why it was stated as such.

Like I said, slavery in those days isn't like the slavery as we know it in modern times. There are laws too that gives protection to slaves.

The OP is whether objective morality comes from God, or is man-made....not whether God is moral, or not.

 

[tosca1]

Absolutely.

In America, today, it is considered "immoral" to marry and have sex with children below a certain age, or to use children of the same gender as sex toys, or to have sex with animals.

It's illegal to do those things, but it's also considered immoral.

There was a time in America when it was perfectly legal and moral for grown men to marry and have sex with 14-year-old girls.

There are countries in the world today where all of the things I mentioned are considered both legal and moral.



It's an unfortunate fact of life that most of us are going to get old.

It's also a fact of life that self-preservation is an inherent aspect of all life.

In order to pass the laws you're talking about the majority of people, knowing that they will one day get old and likely sick, would have to willingly sign their own death warrant.

Isn't gonna happen.



Same thing for childless couples I guess? Or the celibate clergy?

There are more ways for people to contribute to society, many more ways, than by just procreating.

So, it is flexible. It can change. What's "bad" today maybe "good" tomorrow.

That doesn't really determine what's bad and wrong.

That's moral relativism.

 

[Hard Truth]

That's what Hard Truth had claimed in another section.

I'm saying, God is the basis for all morals - it's the standard from which moral values are based.


I'd like to try to prove this. So I'd like for you to please answer this.


If I shoot a pedestrian in the face with a shotgun.......is that good or bad?

Its sad if anyone dies or is wounded. Whether it was an ethical act depends on whether it was self defense or for the defense of another innocent person facing an imminent threat. Some might argue that it could also be ethical if he was an enemy soldier, a murderer or a similarly bad person (rapist, kidnapper, architect of genocide), but I am not fond of the death penalty.

Note that the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments say "Thou shall not kill," with no exceptions or nuance provided, but most believers allow exceptions for non-humans, self defense, opposing armies and civilians during war and for executions of a convict. Religious people practice situational ethics/moral relativism also.

 

[tosca1]

To everyone who responded:


Christian absolutists believe that God is the ultimate source of our common morality, and that it is, therefore, as unchanging as He is. Moral relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard. Rather, ethical “truths” depend on variables such as the situation, culture, one's feelings, etc.

Several things can be said of the arguments for moral relativism which demonstrate their dubious nature. First, while many of the arguments used in the attempt to support relativism might sound good at first, there is a logical contradiction inherent in all of them because they all propose the “right” moral scheme—the one we all ought to follow. But this itself is absolutism. Second, even so-called relativists reject relativism in most cases. They would not say that a murderer or rapist is free from guilt so long as he did not violate his own standards.

Relativists may argue that different values among different cultures show that morals are relative to different people. But this argument confuses the actions of individuals (what they do) with absolute standards (whether they should do it).

If culture determines right and wrong, how could we have judged the Nazis? After all, they were only following their culture's morality. Only if murder is universally wrong were the Nazis wrong. The fact that they had “their morality” does not change that.

Further, although many people have different practices of morality, they still share a common morality. For instance, abortionists and anti-abortionists agree that murder is wrong, but they disagree on whether abortion is murder. So, even here, absolute universal morality is shown to be true.

The fact is that all people are born with a conscience, and we all instinctively know when we have been wronged or when we have wronged others. We act as though we expect others to recognize this as well. Even as children we knew the difference between “fair” and “unfair.” It takes bad philosophy to convince us that we are wrong and that moral relativism is true.


Read more: What is moral relativism?

 

[Hard Truth]

Well, that's not exactly an answer, is it? We're trying to find out if it's true that moral values are man-made!

Okay, explain it then...WHY IS IT "IMMORAL?"

It is immoral because we understand that we will have a better society if people do not murder each other. It is immoral because we would not want to be murdered and we collectively agree not to murder each other. It is immoral because it harms people, not just the victim, but also his/her friends and family etc.

 

[Chagos]

If one wants to read a somewhat more objective explanation (rather than from a religion peddling site) of moral relativism, here ya go:

Moral Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

With all the pros and cons largely covered, the (part of) the conclusion that seems pertinent to me reads

However, the attitude labeled “moral relativism” by the pope and others who worry about the moral health of contemporary society is not a well defined or rigorously defended philosophical position. It typically amounts to little more than a skepticism about objective moral truth, often expressed as the idea that beliefs and actions are not right or wrong per se, only right or wrong for someone. Philosophers like Gilbert Harman, David Wong, and Richard Rorty who defend forms of moral relativism seek to articulate and defend philosophically sophisticated alternatives to objectivism. As they see it, they are not countenancing immorality, injustice, or moral nihilism; rather, they are trying to say something about the nature of moral claims and the justifications given for them. The main problem they face is to show how the denial of objective moral truth need not entail a subjectivism that drains the rationality out of moral discourse. Their critics, on the other hand, face the possibly even more challenging task of justifying the claim that there is such a thing as objective moral truth.

 

[Chagos]

If culture determines right and wrong, how could we have judged the Nazis? After all, they were only following their culture's morality. Only if murder is universally wrong were the Nazis wrong. The fact that they had “their morality” does not change that.

Apart from the fact that the driving people in the Nazi regime did not concern themselves with morality or at least perverted it in their minds beyond recognition, it is idiotic to purvey that 12 years of that regime succeeded in creating a culture that ran contrary to what at least Western society considered right or wrong. Most German were aware of the difference for centuries before, during the years from '33 to '45 and afterwards. That in the dark years many did not act accordingly is a different matter, causes ranging from denial to fear for one's life to self serving hypocrisy.

It's a lousy example as are all dictatorships where standing up entails perils.

The fact is that all people are born with a conscience, and we all instinctively know when we have been wronged or when we have wronged others.

Fact is? Where do we keep hearing this?

On the issue of nurture vs. nature or one enhancing the other, when somebody claims to have all the facts, it's time to move on to more productive fields.

Nobody, but nobody, is in possession of objective moral truth. Those claiming to be, least of all.

 

[Hard Truth]

.....
If culture determines right and wrong, how could we have judged the Nazis? After all, they were only following their culture's morality. Only if murder is universally wrong were the Nazis wrong. The fact that they had “their morality” does not change that....

Hitler and the Nazis thought they were following the morality of the Bible. I don't blame the Bible for their acts (very much) but it shows that the absolute morality of Christianity does not prevent evil acts.

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”

[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian
and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord
at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight
against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact
that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As
a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is
anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is
the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty
to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and
work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only
for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning
and see these men standing in their queues and look into their
pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very
devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two
thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people
are plundered and exposed.”

[Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a
political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on
his personal Christian feelings. Published in “My New Order”, quoted
in Freethought Today April 1990]

 

[the_recruit]

If I shoot a pedestrian in the face with a shotgun.......is that good or bad?

Assuming the pedestrian isn't Justin Bieber, then bad.

 

[Chagos]

Hitler and the Nazis thought they were following the morality of the Bible. I don't blame the Bible for their acts (very much) but it shows that the absolute morality of Christianity does not prevent evil acts.

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”

[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian
and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord
at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight
against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact
that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As
a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is
anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is
the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty
to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and
work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only
for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning
and see these men standing in their queues and look into their
pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very
devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two
thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people
are plundered and exposed.”

[Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a
political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on
his personal Christian feelings. Published in “My New Order”, quoted
in Freethought Today April 1990]

Good find!

 

[distraff]

That's what Hard Truth had claimed in another section.

I'm saying, God is the basis for all morals - it's the standard from which moral values are based.


I'd like to try to prove this. So I'd like for you to please answer this.


If I shoot a pedestrian in the face with a shotgun.......is that good or bad?

From a rational perspective that can be a very complex question. I can give you some reasoning but there is no absolute right and wrong here. But I can provide a strong argument that from a rational perspective it is in our best self-interest not to shoot random strangers.

How about you? What is you evidence that this action is wrong? How is God the basis of right and wrong? What is your evidence?

 

[elephants17]

In Friedrich Nietzches "Beyond Good and Evil" he explains the natural history of morals as well as our virtues and what we deem "noble". If you haven't already, I would most definitely invest in reading it. Essentially, (in the most simple of terms) Our meaning of "good" changes due to personal development, religion or outside factors. The underlying force for change or reform is driven by will (whether that will be for power, domination, money etc.). The concept of what is good or bad can only be decided by how one reacts to that action of will and that could be completely different for each person. To actually answer your question, if you shoot somebody in the face, is it even POSSIBLE to begin to analyze the many different scenarios in which that occurred? For example, if it was a mother holding a baby, some people would have called you the scum of the earth. If the person you shot was a child rapist or serial killer, people might react differently. Humans ability to deem what is good, bad, right or wrong all comes from varying life experiences which leads to different reactions to the action of will exhibited by someone or something.

 

[Excon]

No, you can't say an action is neither good or bad when we label actions as such! So your argument doesn't apply. It's not realistic.

There you go again not paying attention to what was said.

You are now speaking from within a "framework" (or if you prefer, artificial construct). :doh
Absent that "framework" it is just an action. An action that is neither good, bad/evil, right/wrong.

 

[Juanita]

I'm not asking whether it's legal or not. I'm asking if it's good or bad (wrong or right).

It depends. If he had just raped your daughter, some would feel that you were morally justified in shooting him in the face.