• 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
25,283
Reaction score
8,296
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.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,873
Reaction score
10,874
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The former must be accepted on faith. The latter can be proven with evidence.
 

Loulit01

Muse Wanted: Apply Naked
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2021
Messages
8,517
Reaction score
9,848
Location
Chillin' on the grassy knoll waiting for JFK Jr.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
23,863
Reaction score
17,080
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
 

Nomad4Ever

The tolerant left? I'm the intolerant left.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
8,333
Reaction score
10,292
Location
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
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.
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 

Mulefoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 4, 2020
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
270
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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.
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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?
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
16,029
Reaction score
4,031
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.
 

Sweden

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
7,118
Reaction score
3,289
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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.
 

Elora

The best is yet to come...
DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
44,723
Reaction score
11,316
Location
Down South
Gender
Female
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...
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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:

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 

KingLeo

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
2,384
Reaction score
2,442
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Morals are the agreed upon norms of a society and were around long before any organized religion.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,291
Reaction score
46,731
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
23,863
Reaction score
17,080
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
 

bomberfox

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
31,302
Reaction score
11,681
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.
 

Gateman_Wen

Official disruptive influence
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
17,505
Reaction score
18,081
Location
Middle of it all
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
36,658
Reaction score
16,364
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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?"
 

Tlrmln

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
16,655
Reaction score
6,693
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
Top Bottom