• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Morality and Ethics: God-derived or human-derived

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
33,876
Reaction score
14,155
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I guess we have discussed this many times before, but it may be worth revisiting it because this question is the basic gulf between religion and atheism/Humanism. Religionists claim that “God” is the absolute and ultimate authority regarding morality while Humanists say that it is human societies that must establish their own ethics based on the long-term stability of that society.

I obviously say that the latter is correct.
 
The former must be accepted on faith. The latter can be proven with evidence.
 
I guess we have discussed this many times before, but it may be worth revisiting it because this question is the basic gulf between religion and atheism/Humanism.
Oh, fun.
Religionists claim that “God” is the absolute and ultimate authority regarding morality
Yet every religion has a different idea of what that absolute and ultimate morality is. So how do you pick one? Usually the one you're born into you think is right and other just don't get it.
while Humanists say that it is human societies that must establish their own ethics based on the long-term stability of that society.
Whether a society is religious or secular, they all estwblish their own ethics.
I obviously say that the latter is correct.
I say neither has done a good job.
 
The concept of morality is human created and invented. No one discovered morality.

But if you look at something like game theory's prisoner's dilemma, what's "best" for an individual at the expense of a group, or what's best for a "group" that adheres to the same rules, is a discovery of fact.
Also, for morality and ethics, its always understood that its from a human frame of reference. Relative to humanity, so to say.
So killing without reason...this is wrong seems discoverable, and not just what someone feels like categorizing it as, on a whim.
 
I say neither has done a good job.
What does doing a 'good job' mean in this context? Even that statement alone implies the existence of a moral system or standard you believe in.
 
But if you look at something like game theory's prisoner's dilemma, what's "best" for an individual at the expense of a group, or what's best for a "group" that adheres to the same rules, is in fact a discovery of fact.
Also, for morality and ethics, its always understood that its from a human frame of reference. Relative to humanity, so to say.
So killing without reason...this is wrong seems discoverable, and not just what someone feels like categorizing it as, on a whim.

No, it is always a subjective view. There are no objective facts with morality even if certain things are popular or even widely agreed upon.
 
In the same way my senses inform me it's raining outside, they also inform me that OM exists. Until someone can offer compelling evidence to the contrary, I'll go ahead and trust them.
 
In the same way my senses inform me it's raining outside, they also inform me that OM exists. Until someone can offer compelling evidence to the contrary, I'll go ahead and trust them.

Which senses are you talking about and what is OM?
 
No, it is always a subjective view. There are no objective facts with morality even if certain things are popular or even widely agreed upon.
There is some confusion over morality and ethics.

Morality is simply an individuals choice and therefor subjective.

Ethics however is when a bunch of philosophers get together and nut out a proposition that can be seen as an objective stance.

For example. The ethical stance is we should not kill. The moral stance is that I will see what the circumstances are before I decide that.
 
No, it is always a subjective view. There are no objective facts with morality even if certain things are popular or even widely agreed upon.
I think there are objective facts about ethical systems however. Places with generally agreed ethical values, including things like 'honesty' achieve better outcomes than those who lack them.
 
while Humanists say that it is human societies that must establish their own ethics based on the long-term stability of that society.
Yeah, we see how that is working...:rolleyes:...major fail...
 
There is some confusion over morality and ethics.

Morality is simply an individuals choice and therefor subjective.

Ethics however is when a bunch of philosophers get together and nut out a proposition that can be seen as an objective stance.

For example. The ethical stance is we should not kill. The moral stance is that I will see what the circumstances are before I decide that.

Philosophy is not objective
 
Last edited:
I think there are objective facts about ethical systems however. Places with generally agreed ethical values, including things like 'honesty' achieve better outcomes than those who lack them.

Yes, there are objective facts about subjective ethical systems.
 
Morals are the agreed upon norms of a society and were around long before any organized religion.
 
People who think morality can only come from God scare me. They're admitting that the only thing stopping them from pillaging, raping, and murdering is their belief that a man in the sky will punish them.
 
No, it is always a subjective view. There are no objective facts with morality even if certain things are popular or even widely agreed upon.
Your claim is contradictory.
"It's always a subjective view" <- This statement is an absolute. Not subjective. It contradicts itself.

"There are no objective fact" Must be either self-evidently true, or an objective fact. It's not self-evident....

Objective facts are a premise on which all of reasoning/philosophy is built.
That there is truth, and we can know it through observation (ultimately)<- the foundation of reason, science, etc.
 
My sense that it's wrong to torture kittens, and objective morality.
We might be using a different definition of objective. Im not so sure morality can exist without human subjects.
 
I guess we have discussed this many times before, but it may be worth revisiting it because this question is the basic gulf between religion and atheism/Humanism. Religionists claim that “God” is the absolute and ultimate authority regarding morality while Humanists say that it is human societies that must establish their own ethics based on the long-term stability of that society.

I obviously say that the latter is correct.
Morality, ethics, rights, etc. It all comes from the society you are part of.
 
I think there are objective facts about ethical systems however. Places with generally agreed ethical values, including things like 'honesty' achieve better outcomes than those who lack them.

I'll try to remember that next time my significant other asks "honey, do these pants make my butt look too big?"
 
I guess we have discussed this many times before, but it may be worth revisiting it because this question is the basic gulf between religion and atheism/Humanism. Religionists claim that “God” is the absolute and ultimate authority regarding morality while Humanists say that it is human societies that must establish their own ethics based on the long-term stability of that society.

I obviously say that the latter is correct.

There is no evidence for the existence of a god, but we have irrefutable evidence for morality and ethics, including among those who don't and have never believed in gods.

This isn't even a remotely difficult question to answer.
 
Your claim is contradictory.
"It's always a subjective view" <- This statement is an absolute. Not subjective. It contradicts itself.

"There are no objective fact" Must be either self-evidently true, or an objective fact. It's not self-evident....

Objective facts are a premise on which all of reasoning/philosophy is built.
That there is truth, and we can know it through observation (ultimately)<- the foundation of reason, science, etc.

My statement of fact is not contradictory. It is a fact that all morality is subjective. Philosophy is not built on objective facts.
 
Back
Top Bottom