You can’t claim there is no line, and then complain when someone crosses it.
Without an outside, objective standard- give or take, kill or kiss- who’s to say?
very relevant to this day and age.
Absolutely. I would say it is the prevailing view of morality today which, when you think about it, is kind of terrifying.
That is the question, isn’t it? Why not?
I read once where a student was trying to explain why his professor’s view of objective morality was wrong, and how each man is the source of his own morality. They were speaking in the student’s dorm, and the professor listened quietly, not saying a word. When the student was done the professor got up, thanked him for the talk, and as he was walking out he picked up the student’s boom box and began to carry it away.
“Where are you going with that?” the student asked.
“I need it”, the professor said. “Surely you won’t object to me taking what I need.”
“But it’s mine,” the student said.
To which the professor answered, “So?”
Heh! I sure would like to do that to some of the “high and mighties” out there…hmmm… maybe I will.
man sometimes people think themselves right into a trap. Even the strip club has rules, if you break those rules then there is a punishment. We as parents have rules for our children to follow and its for their own sake, if they brake the rules then there is a punishment. All parents do this. If we love our kids then we will establish boundaries for our children out of love and for their protection. So why can’t atheist or non-believers see that God as our Father should have rules and order to the universe. And that the rules aren’t punishment but used for order and safety.
Children need rules because they don’t know better. It’s not morality
for them, it’s for their protection. Criminals need rules because they
don’t care. It’s not morality that keeps them in line, it’s fear of
punishment. But if the average adult only does good out of fear, or for
self-preservation, then it’s not morality. As Arthur Schopenhauer said, “Compassion is the basis for all morality.”
Not God, not the police, not the desire to stay alive, not the fear of
the electric chair. Compassion, which any human (rational or otherwise)
is capable of. If you want to argue that compassion is a divine gift,
then that’s an argument you can make, but morality is not a gift. It
is a byproduct of caring for your fellow creatures.
To say morality is a by-product of caring for your fellow creatures begs the question. After all, who says I should care for my fellow creatures? You? Who are you to tell me what to do?
If God doesn’t exist, then I’ll tell you who says: no one. It is just your opinion against mine. You say I should care for fellow creatures, I may say I should be free to kill them at my slightest whim. It’s your idea against mine. Stalemate.
The point is, if God exists- if reality is created, and sustained by Him- then He is the standard of the ways of life. Morality is established by what aligns with the very Person- the ultimate Person- who created creatures like us who are even able to consider morality, much less the universe they exist in.
Therefore, I believe morality is object, not subjective. It is much more rational to say that we OUGHT to care for our fellow creatures because HE cares for them… and us.
I’d actually say something more….complicated here. Morality is the result of a group of people attempting to reach a goal that cannot be reached by a single human being alone. If I want descendants, I need to screw someone in order to produce a kid. However, there’s a high chance that that person can leave me behind with the kid alone (Forcing me, a woman, into a really awkward situation) or murder me AND the kid because all they want is to screw me. But if that guy kills me, there’s a chance for HIM that he will never screw anyone again because he believes he is undesirable and he isn’t strong enough to rape. That chance exists in his mind when he meets me. The chance that he’ll leave me exists in my mind.
Those two parties, thousands of years ago, made a compromise. And the compromise went like this: Both parties agree to give the other unlimited screwing rights, and joint access to one another’s resources because the woman often needed his resources to raise the child. In return, the woman agrees to NOT screw anyone else and have only his kids…In exchange for his absolute, unqualified protection and agreement to never leave her.
Eventually, the two work out that their agreement is efficient and really effective, and conclude from that efficiency (And the fact that other couples happened upon the same idea) what humans tend to conclude from efficiency: That the agreement must be “the right thing to do.” Everyone who doesn’t do “the right thing to do” suddenly becomes “wrong,” and in small groups being “wrong” was also a death sentence. Why? Because in a social group if you persistently do the “wrong” thing, sometimes that can condemn the entire damn group to death. It becomes necessary, quickly, because sometimes the urge to do “wrong” is overwhelming, to create a really good, overriding reason to do the “right thing to do.”
Essentially, moral standards don’t require a God. They require only what most social species have: The problem of getting multiple people to cooperate. I have a suspicion that if Bees were smart enough to think, they’d think of their Queen as a Goddess.
Interestingly, I’m no atheist. I very much believe that there’s a God, because if He didn’t exist than His Adversary couldn’t either…..and I’m fairly certain that guy does exist. But I do understand why it’s possible to take an atheistic view of how morality arose in multiple cultures.
Also note that love is, of course, factored out of the equation to show how the example might work, but…Love factors into a great majority of decisions made by humans. If you ask me, the existence of Love is a hell of a lot better of an argument for the existence of God than the existence of moral standards. 🙂
So, you’ve just taken the scenic route to describe the very same thing “Sandor Deent” (above) was saying: morality is subjective. It is merely what works for a specific group provided that group agrees and operates under that agreement. Bingo! Morality, right?
But what I am saying is that morality is not based on any group agreement, but based in the reality of God. His nature sets the standard, and as His will holds the universe together (on a molecular level), His nature permeates all of creation.
Your little scenario you presented is pure fiction on every level. So many cultures have approached the idea of family and parentage from ssooo many angles that run contrary to our current sensibilities it is ludicrous to say that morality comes from the group. What I’m saying is that if you compare groups you will see mind-blowing difference in moral structures. That’s what tends to happen when man is left to be his own master.
But what you DO find once you start digging is that the foundational aspects of different moral systems are remarkably similar. One culture agrees on monogamous marriage, another may be polygamous, another may allow same sex marriage, and yet another may hate marriage altogether. Very different, right? But what you’ll find is an underlying agreement that raising children is good and important. They may argue about parentage and the home, but they will usually agree that bringing up the next generation is important and a central focus in life. …Now HOW to bring up children is another issue, but what I am saying is that the underlying morality may be universal because God is, and He put that morality in our hearts, but HOW to institute that morality changes from group to group.
Anyhoo… thems my thoughts. Peace.
It’s odd how so many people fail to grasp this.
There is no god, deal with it. It’s 2013, stop believing in fairy tales.
Been there. Done that. Moved on.
God bless you, Roland! 😉
Great point. So simple
Thanks, uhh… Mr. Cartoon Maniac? 🙂