What is Morality?

[CaptainFritz28]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't actually establish morality, just states rights belonging to a given moral code.

Also, it only exists because it was accepted by the UN General Assembly. This is still a majority-makes-right system.

Individual morality may exist, sure, but over time the people we deem amoral or immoral aren't as likely to pass on their beliefs. Over time, it really is a case of majority-makes-right.



Ah, but who chose to accept the bible?

Aha! You see, here is my point. The Bible should not be accepted because people agree with it; it should be accepted because it is right. It's canon was determined by a council, yes, but that council determined the books not based on what they liked or disliked, but based on factors that made them verifiable as canon, such as the writers being apostles or closely in contact with apostles, the text not contradicting other parts of Scripture, etc.

Anyhow, even if everyone disagreed with the Bible except for me, it would still be truth. Now, I would want to examine why they disagreed with it, but the fact of a majority disagreeing does not change its truth.

If we remove ultimate standards, however, the UN's Declaration of Human Rights must not only be moral because a majority agree to institute it, but it loses its morality if the majority turn against it. Because the Bible is an ultimate standard, it will never lose its morality.

Damn. Captain, you were so logical and had such great arguments, but they fell to pieces when you get to the Bible. Or perhaps, maybe you didn't have arguments. What you had was really good socratic methods showing us all how stupid our arguments are. But on one of your main subpoints, I fully agree with you. We need a firm and accepted standard of morality, and that it should be suprahuman, because humans change what they think is important. Suprahuman means, I guess, that it should come from God.

I agree with your point that the UN Declaration on Human Rights may change over time, or maybe in time of total war, everyone will agree that it is of no consequence, and therefore it may not be the moral standard. Good argument.

The Bible is right whether people agree with it or not. That is also a good argument almost. Whether people agree with it or not does not make it the definitive moral standard. Ok. I buy that too.

But, the Bible, as we know it, was composed by politicians who are probably just as flawed as the people who wrote the UN document.

Why was there a council of Nicea? It was because everyone seemed to agree that there is one definitive Truth about Jesus, God and the World, only everyone seemed to have differing views of what that truth was. Whomever believed the wrong truth would be exiled, jailed, murdered. The Roman Christians killed more Christians than the Roman pagans did, on a per year basis. They did it over doctrinal purity. Just like the Bolsheviks and Menshiviks, or the differing factions of the French Revolution.

Do I have any answers? Hell no! I don't trust groups to come up with answers either.

To me, the best morality comes from Albert Schweitzer, a mystic and noble prize winner for peace, who everyone has forgotten. He said "life is sacred"' and all decisions should be based on that. That is the foundation of his morality.

So really the only thing you and I disagree on is what the true Bible is.

[CaptainFritz28]

Humans corrupt things. Governments corrupt things even faster. If it were just up l
to that I would say you might be right.

Whatever the case may be, based on what's been shown so far on this thread, I probably won't be convinced simply because of this. But it has given me questions to ask, things to study, and options to consider. I had heard this argument before, but not in so much detail. So thank you for that, I will consider your points beyond just this thread.

That said, here is my rationale to the contrary:
If the God of the Old Testament is the same God as of the New, then there are two things to be considered:

1) God works often through providence. He also is a God who reveals himself to humanity, through the Bible. Therefore, what is there to say that God could not have orchestrated the councils and events of determining canon such that the correct Gospel is given to us? We have thus far ignored the omnipotence of God, and I think it wise to return to the fact that God has all power, and is capable of such a thing. There is a spiritual aspect to this that cannot be overlooked.

2) Even if the known Gospels are false, what is better? We know there must be morality, and thus Atheism is ruled out. No other religion is consistent with itself and observable science as much as the Bible (for reasons we have already discussed). From a practical standpoint, Christianity has been responsible for the most good done out of all worldviews, by far. That's Christianity even with what you claim are false Gospels. Similarly to what DarthPorg36 quoted from The Silver Chair, if Christianity is the made up, then for all the good done by it, for all the hope it brings, for all the lives it's changed, I would rather believe this than anything else.

[JECE]

Tyrannical prohibition on murder

Without an ultimate standard, that's exactly what it is.

Not to throw your words back at you or anything, but:
"Aha! You see, here is my point. [Prohibition of murder and capital punishment] should not be accepted because people agree with it; it should be accepted because it is right. . . . Anyhow, even if everyone disagreed with the [immorality of murder and capital punishment] except for me, it would still be truth. Now, I would want to examine why they disagreed with it, but the fact of a majority disagreeing does not change its truth. . . . Because the [right to life] is an ultimate standard, it will never lose its morality."

[CaptainFritz28]

Do you not realize that all you are saying is that murder being wrong is a part of an ultimate moral standard? You are saying that it will always be true that murder is evil, no matter what. I agree, because the Bible agrees. You agree, because you say so. You are simply placing yourself as your ultimate moral standard. Where that logic fails is when someone disagrees with you. Why is you being right any more morally good than someone else being right and you being wrong?

[JECE]

Do you not realize that all you are saying is that murder being wrong is a part of an ultimate moral standard? You are saying that it will always be true that murder is evil, no matter what. I agree, because the Bible agrees. You agree, because you say so. You are simply placing yourself as your ultimate moral standard. Where that logic fails is when someone disagrees with you. Why is you being right any more morally good than someone else being right and you being wrong?

You don't need the Bible to tell you that murder is wrong either. It would be rather disturbing if you needed the Bible to make such a basic value judgement. It has long saddened me to hear questions like 'how do you know right from wrong if you don't believe in god?' And I don't say that because I find it sad that religious people can't figure out right from wrong without the threat of eternal torture, et cetera. I think that you're perfectly capable of independently figuring out what is just and what is unjust. I find it very sad that people like you can't comprehend how atheists know right from wrong.

I don't find much value in humanism since its theses appear self-evident to me, but it occurs to me that you might find these resources informative:
https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/
https://centerforinquiry.org/definitions/what-is-secular-humanism/

For my own values, it isn't an ultimate moral standard, but this probably covers most of it:
https://www.socialistinternational.org/about-us/declaration-of-principles/

[Jamiet99uk]

Do you not realize that all you are saying is that murder being wrong is a part of an ultimate moral standard? You are saying that it will always be true that murder is evil, no matter what. I agree, because the Bible agrees. You agree, because you say so. You are simply placing yourself as your ultimate moral standard. Where that logic fails is when someone disagrees with you. Why is you being right any more morally good than someone else being right and you being wrong?

You don't need the Bible to tell you that murder is wrong either. It would be rather disturbing if you needed the Bible to make such a basic value judgement. It has long saddened me to hear questions like 'how do you know right from wrong if you don't believe in god?' And I don't say that because I find it sad that religious people can't figure out right from wrong without the threat of eternal torture, et cetera. I think that you're perfectly capable of independently figuring out what is just and what is unjust. I find it very sad that people like you can't comprehend how atheists know right from wrong.

I don't find much value in humanism since its theses appear self-evident to me, but it occurs to me that you might find these resources informative:
https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/
https://centerforinquiry.org/definitions/what-is-secular-humanism/

For my own values, it isn't an ultimate moral standard, but this probably covers most of it:
https://www.socialistinternational.org/about-us/declaration-of-principles/

I also find this strange.

The idea that a person wouldn't know not to go around murdering other people if it wasn't for God bellowing at them and threatening to send them to hell. It's weird.

[CaptainFritz28]

Do you not realize that all you are saying is that murder being wrong is a part of an ultimate moral standard? You are saying that it will always be true that murder is evil, no matter what. I agree, because the Bible agrees. You agree, because you say so. You are simply placing yourself as your ultimate moral standard. Where that logic fails is when someone disagrees with you. Why is you being right any more morally good than someone else being right and you being wrong?

You don't need the Bible to tell you that murder is wrong either. It would be rather disturbing if you needed the Bible to make such a basic value judgement. It has long saddened me to hear questions like 'how do you know right from wrong if you don't believe in god?' And I don't say that because I find it sad that religious people can't figure out right from wrong without the threat of eternal torture, et cetera. I think that you're perfectly capable of independently figuring out what is just and what is unjust. I find it very sad that people like you can't comprehend how atheists know right from wrong.

I don't find much value in humanism since its theses appear self-evident to me, but it occurs to me that you might find these resources informative:
https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/
https://centerforinquiry.org/definitions/what-is-secular-humanism/

For my own values, it isn't an ultimate moral standard, but this probably covers most of it:
https://www.socialistinternational.org/about-us/declaration-of-principles/

You've disregarded entirely the moral beliefs of, say, murderers. And of certain sects of Islam, which believes that murdering Christians and Jews is good. And the Nazis, who believed that murdering Jews is good.

We DO need an ultimate standard to state that murder is wrong. Why? Because not all atheists infividually come to the conclusion that murder is wrong.

You know right from wrong because you think it is best for the common good. But not every atheist cares about the common good, and you cannot condemn them for doing things that are not in accordance with your version of the common good, because they may have a different version of the common good.

I find it very sad that people like you can't comprehend how atheists know right from wrong.

I'm beginning to wonder if all of your arguments are just insults based on a lack of understanding of my thought process. I know full well how atheists come to moral conclusions. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter how you come to a moral conclusion, because your moral conclusion cannot condemn my actions, because I may have a different moral conclusion, and Atheism gives no standard by which to say yours is better than mine.

I think that you're perfectly capable of independently figuring out what is just and what is unjust.

So then why are our courts so full of people with conflicting views about justice?

The trouble with your whole argument is that it is based on everyone agreeing with you. You are saying that each individual has their personal morals, but you have no method of determining what to do when personal morals come into conflict. What if someone disagrees with what you cited as a majority of your beliefs?

I ask that you answer a simple question, that is all that I ask:
How can we determine that your morals are any better than a Nazi's, that your version of the common good is any better than Stalin's, or that your belief that murder is wrong is any better than that of an atheist who believes that murder is right?

[CaptainFritz28]

Do you not realize that all you are saying is that murder being wrong is a part of an ultimate moral standard? You are saying that it will always be true that murder is evil, no matter what. I agree, because the Bible agrees. You agree, because you say so. You are simply placing yourself as your ultimate moral standard. Where that logic fails is when someone disagrees with you. Why is you being right any more morally good than someone else being right and you being wrong?

You don't need the Bible to tell you that murder is wrong either. It would be rather disturbing if you needed the Bible to make such a basic value judgement. It has long saddened me to hear questions like 'how do you know right from wrong if you don't believe in god?' And I don't say that because I find it sad that religious people can't figure out right from wrong without the threat of eternal torture, et cetera. I think that you're perfectly capable of independently figuring out what is just and what is unjust. I find it very sad that people like you can't comprehend how atheists know right from wrong.

I don't find much value in humanism since its theses appear self-evident to me, but it occurs to me that you might find these resources informative:
https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/
https://centerforinquiry.org/definitions/what-is-secular-humanism/

For my own values, it isn't an ultimate moral standard, but this probably covers most of it:
https://www.socialistinternational.org/about-us/declaration-of-principles/

I also find this strange.

The idea that a person wouldn't know not to go around murdering other people if it wasn't for God bellowing at them and threatening to send them to hell. It's weird.

But there are people, religious and atheist alike, who believe that murder is right. What do you do about that? Who's to say they are wrong, and why are they wrong and you right?

Also, your version of God is very much a straw man, but I won't go into that.

[CaptainFritz28]

Look, just because the two of you agree that murder is wrong doesn't mean everyone else does. Quite honestly, I find it ridiculous that you fail to even acknowledge that there are people who disagree with you on the subject of murder. I am not one of them, but I have a reason to believe what I do. Your reason is simply because "my intuition tells me so" which is just as circular as any idea of God, but less reliable.

[Jamiet99uk]

Look, just because the two of you agree that murder is wrong doesn't mean everyone else does. Quite honestly, I find it ridiculous that you fail to even acknowledge that there are people who disagree with you on the subject of murder. I am not one of them, but I have a reason to believe what I do. Your reason is simply because "my intuition tells me so" which is just as circular as any idea of God, but less reliable.

I acknowledge there are psychopaths and murderers in society, but I am confident that they are an incredibly small percentage of the total of humanity.

You're ranting on as if 51% of the Earth's population believes that indiscriminate murder is bad, but 49% of people think murder is wonderful, and therefore there is an urgent need for an accurate means to determine which of those groups is right (and you think that the Bible is the answer). That murder is wrong is an issue on which, actually, I am sure over 99.5% of Earth's population is in strong agreement.

[CaptainFritz28]

So then, you believe that the majority determines morality.

[Jamiet99uk]

So then, you believe that the majority determines morality.

I did not say that.

You are presenting a case in which there is an almost even split between the pro-murdering and anti-murdering factions, and the only way we can tell who is right is to consult the Bible.

I am calling bullshit on that.

I know that murder is wrong because I do not want to be murdered; I do not want any of my friends, family, or acquaintances to be murdered; I can perceive that murder causes suffering and I know that suffering feels bad.

As a human I am capable of at least these most basic of moral judgements without God's instruction, because I possess a very important quality shared with many other humans: empathy.

[CaptainFritz28]

So what would you say to someone who legitimately believes murder is morally right? They are a human, just as you. They are capable of empathy, just as you. They do not want to be murdered, just as you. But they disagree with you. Tell me, what makes you any more morally correct than someone who believes that?

Your statement is that "as a human" you are capable of these moral judgements. That means that your claims should be applicable to all humans. But they are not, clearly, because murderers disagree with you. The percentage of murderers to people who agree with you is meaningless.

[CaptainFritz28]

I did not say that.

Then why did you base the entirety of your last post around statistics of majority to minority?

You are presenting a case in which there is an almost even split between the pro-murdering and anti-murdering factions, and the only way we can tell who is right is to consult the Bible.

It doesn't matter how many people are on what side. In the real world, the great majority believes that murder is wrong. What of it? This has nothing to do with numbers, or who is the majority.

No. Your claim is that every human has the moral guidance that murder is wrong simply because they are human. Therefore, your claim must apply to every human.

[Jamiet99uk]

I did not say that.

Then why did you base the entirety of your last post around statistics of majority to minority?

That is what you were doing. I was highlighting the silliness of your case.

[Jamiet99uk]

So what would you say to someone who legitimately believes murder is morally right? They are a human, just as you. They are capable of empathy, just as you. They do not want to be murdered, just as you. But they disagree with you. Tell me, what makes you any more morally correct than someone who believes that?

I have never met such a person.

Find me one and I will debate it with them.

[Hanging Rook]

So what would you say to someone who legitimately believes murder is morally right? They are a human, just as you. They are capable of empathy, just as you. They do not want to be murdered, just as you. But they disagree with you. Tell me, what makes you any more morally correct than someone who believes that?

I have never met such a person.

Find me one and I will debate it with them.

In this context I want to point out that opinions of people about abortion differ widely.

[Jamiet99uk]

So what would you say to someone who legitimately believes murder is morally right? They are a human, just as you. They are capable of empathy, just as you. They do not want to be murdered, just as you. But they disagree with you. Tell me, what makes you any more morally correct than someone who believes that?

I have never met such a person.

Find me one and I will debate it with them.

In this context I want to point out that opinions of people about abortion differ widely.

This is a good point of context.

I have met plenty of people who disagree with my view on whether abortion is acceptable or not.

I do not frequently encounter people who think murder is acceptable.

[Crazy Anglican]

So what would you say to someone who legitimately believes murder is morally right? They are a human, just as you. They are capable of empathy, just as you. They do not want to be murdered, just as you. But they disagree with you. Tell me, what makes you any more morally correct than someone who believes that?

I have never met such a person.

Find me one and I will debate it with them.

In this context I want to point out that opinions of people about abortion differ widely.

Yeah, I was going to chime in on that as well. The definition of murder is a dicey one. I believe, and you can correct me if I am wrong Jamiet99uk, that you are pro choice? In the opinion of some, you are that person who supports murder that you want to debate.

[Jamiet99uk]

I have never met such a person.

Find me one and I will debate it with them.

In this context I want to point out that opinions of people about abortion differ widely.

Yeah, I was going to chime in on that as well. The definition of murder is a dicey one. I believe, and you can correct me if I am wrong Jamiet99uk, that you are pro choice? In the opinion of some, you are that person who supports murder that you want to debate.

Yes I am pro-choice.

No I do not regard that as being pro-murder.

I would prefer to avoid going off on this particular tangent right now.