Morality and Ethics: God-derived or human-derived

[Exquisitor]

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.

What's the difference, God or Man?

God wrote it, man wrote it, what's the difference?

 

[soylentgreen]

Philosophy is not objective

No, but it can create tenets. And a tenet is a proposition that can be treated as a truth or objectively.

An example would be a medical ethic of do no harm. Yet in cases such as abortion a doctor can follow their own personal moral choice of which causes more harm.

 

[Sweden]

Philosophy is not objective

Philosophy is only a pastime for clever people. If every philosophy faculty in every university in the world had been closed down in, say, 1900 it would have not a spark of difference to the course of history - or the progress of science and technology,

Philosophical fads come and go as new star intellectuals rise and fall.

 

[soylentgreen]

Philosophy is only a pastime for clever people. If every philosophy faculty in every university in the world had been closed down in, say, 1900 it would have not a spark of difference to the course of history - or the progress of science and technology,

Philosophical fads come and go as new star intellectuals rise and fall.

True philosophy is a great exercise for the mind as it helps us to analyze problems logically and then be able to think of different ways to do things.

Where as a person can spend a life time weight lifting and body building. And it would not make a difference to any one if a person did or did not do that.

 

[Sweden]

True philosophy is a great exercise for the mind as it helps us to analyze problems logically and then be able to think of different ways to do things.

Where as a person can spend a life time weight lifting and body building. And it would not make a difference to any one if a person did or did not do that.

I don't think so. All philosophy does it to help the intelligent justify doing whatever they want. Philosophy has been used in support of Communism, Naziism and all other vile "different ways of doing things".

 

[spud_meister]

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.

Your senses, and your belief in objective morality, are subjective.

 

[spud_meister]

I don't think so. All philosophy does it to help the intelligent justify doing whatever they want. Philosophy has been used in support of Communism, Naziism and all other vile "different ways of doing things".

Philosophy is a lens for viewing reality. It's a tool, and like all tools, can be misused. But we don't discard hammers because they can be used to kill.

 

[Sweden]

Philosophy is a lens for viewing reality. It's a tool, and like all tools, can be misused. But we don't discard hammers because they can be used to kill.

I don't see philosophy as a tool to see reality but as one to aid sophistry.

 

[Sweden]

Your senses, and your belief in objective morality, are subjective.

Not entirely so. Sometimes seeing really is believing. To deny the value of scientific observation is actually to deny science itself.

 

[OrphanSlug]

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.

As others have pointed out, the former is based on belief which has nothing to do with fact.

The latter is based on human history we know from various areas of academia that suggest humanity came up with ethics and law, social standards and constructs long before anyone got into a debate over polytheism vs. monotheism.

Said another way, many things the prevailing religions today claim to own they did not even come up with including some of the used mythology and storylines.

Humanism politically has become a 4-letter word but ethically and philosophically the concept is a focus on the importance, valuation, and ethics of life. Science, reason, process, quality, improvements, etc. are all areas of Humanism that frankly Religion tends to ignore and usually on purpose.

 

[devildavid]

What's the difference, God or Man?

God wrote it, man wrote it, what's the difference?

The difference would be that man is known to exist and gods not so much.

 

[devildavid]

True philosophy is a great exercise for the mind as it helps us to analyze problems logically and then be able to think of different ways to do things.

Where as a person can spend a life time weight lifting and body building. And it would not make a difference to any one if a person did or did not do that.

Is true philosophy like a true Scotsman?

All kidding aside, philosophy has it's good points and bad points. A lot of it is spent on ideas that get nowhere because the next philosopher and the next one challenges the ideas. It amounts to questions more than answers, which I suppose has some value. It's weakness is when people see the ideas as some kind of final answer or truth. I see philosophy as the endless questions with no final answers.

If logic falls under philosophy then it is one area of usefulness, as the basic rules of logic don't change, similar to how the basic rules of math don't change.

 

[Mulefoot]

Your senses, and your belief in objective morality, are subjective.

This is true, but I still think it was raining. And unless there's evidence that torturing cats for pleasure is perfectly moral in some cases, I'll trust my subjective sense that torturing cats for pleasure is objectively, morally wrong.

 

[soylentgreen]

I don't think so. All philosophy does it to help the intelligent justify doing whatever they want. Philosophy has been used in support of Communism, Naziism and all other vile "different ways of doing things".

Kind of ironic that you blame the intelligent for the silliest of reasons.

And to follow down the rabbit hole I would assume this also implies that only the non intelligent think good things like have christian values and vote for trump.

 

[devildavid]

This is true, but I still think it was raining. And unless there's evidence that torturing cats for pleasure is perfectly moral in some cases, I'll trust my subjective sense that torturing cats for pleasure is objectively, morally wrong.

You are using two entirety different meanings of the word sense.

 

[Quag]

This is true, but I still think it was raining. And unless there's evidence that torturing cats for pleasure is perfectly moral in some cases, I'll trust my subjective sense that torturing cats for pleasure is objectively, morally wrong.

You can think it is morally wrong to torture cats (and I agree) but morals remain subjective I think you are misusing the terms objective and subjective

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).

 

[soylentgreen]

Is true philosophy like a true Scotsman?

All kidding aside, philosophy has it's good points and bad points. A lot of it is spent on ideas that get nowhere because the next philosopher and the next one challenges the ideas. It amounts to questions more than answers, which I suppose has some value. It's weakness is when people see the ideas as some kind of final answer or truth. I see philosophy as the endless questions with no final answers.

If logic falls under philosophy then it is one area of usefulness, as the basic rules of logic don't change, similar to how the basic rules of math don't change.

That part in bold. You hit the nail on the head. The purpose of philosophy is to create more questions than answers. Those who have the answer are not doing philosophy.

Unfortunately the alternative to philosophy and thinking things through is hitting people on the head as a solution.

 

[Mach]

My statement of fact is not contradictory.

It is. You haven't demonstrated it's not in contradiction, as I've shown.

It is a fact that all morality is subjective.

That's an absolute statement itself! Is this fact not objective? Where did you get the evidence to back this absolute claim about morality?

Philosophy is not built on objective facts.

Another absolute statement! Is this itself an "objective fact"? If that's part of philosophy, then it's a contradiction again since philosophy is (to you) based on this objective fact!
You're basically writing that "It's an objective fact of philosophy, that philosophy is not built on objective fact". <- It's a contradiction, absurd.

Instead of this objective/subjective, try using "reasoning" to back your claims, and to form opinions. It's not filled with such contradictions.

 

[Mulefoot]

You are using two entirety different meanings of the word sense.

No I'm not. Objectively, it is raining outside. Objectively, morality exists. I have found that my senses are reliable enough to inform me.

 

[devildavid]

No I'm not. Objectively, it is raining outside. Objectively, morality exists. I have found that my senses are reliable enough to inform me.

Which of your physical senses is engaged when sensing morality as compared to sensing it is raining?

Rain is a physical phenomenon, morality is a human invented concept. They are not in the same category.

 

[Gordy327]

No I'm not. Objectively, it is raining outside. Objectively, morality exists. I have found that my senses are reliable enough to inform me.

What is "objective morality?" What is the source of objective morality? How does one "sense" morality?

 

[Mulefoot]

Which of your physical senses is engaged when sensing morality as compared to sensing it is raining?

Rain is a physical phenomenon, morality is a human invented concept. They are not in the same category.

You think truth can be found the physical senses, whereas say the sense of understanding the passing of time or sense of morality, is less reliable?

 

[Gordy327]

You think truth can be found the physical senses, whereas say the sense of understanding the passing of time or sense of morality, is less reliable?

"Sensing" the passage of time is quite unreliable compared to objectively measuring time. One may be able to estimate how much time passes with varying degrees of accuracy, or inaccuracy. But objective measurements are more accurate, down to the second.

 

[Mulefoot]

What is "objective morality?" What is the source of objective morality? How does one "sense" morality?

That morality exists, and isn't up to interpretation. I think objective morality must be grounded in God, although some atheists like Sam Harris disagree.

 

[gboisjo]

Morality, ethics, rights, etc. It all comes from the society you are part of.

Yup, sociology 101.

Humans are also hardwired to act in certain ways ..it speaks to the great apes we evolved from who were aggressive and violent.

Look at the never ending wars humans seem to enjoy .. I mean look at the slaughter in Ukraine and tell me some don't bath in the murder.