What is Morality?

[Crazy Anglican]

Okay, so where is your objective morality coming from, if you're so sure there is such a thing?

It comes from God and his commandments (and I'd like to go on record as saying that I have no political aspirations in that )

By common definition, God is perfect, omniscient, relatively omnipotent compared to humanity (although usually not truly omnipotent, as the Christian God cannot sin and many gods from polytheistic religions have limited capabilities), and exists outside of time.

Yes, with the caveat that there is a difference between cannot and does not.

If there is an objective morality, then it is by definition perfect, it is what we all hope to achieve. It is also relatively omnipotent, since it guides the majority of people in most actions. It also exists outside of time, or else it would be changeable. You could argue strongly that such a morality is also omniscient. Therefore, isn't the morality you describe a God? Certainly it isn't the Christian one, but of course the Christian God isn't the only potential God.

I'd say more accurately it's an ideal than a god, but in thinking about this; I came to a bit of an epiphany. Remember the commandment "Thou shall have no gods before me." That's kind of odd for a monotheistic religion, isn't it? It's pretty clear that in the Bronze Age it was a warning against idolatry, but it fits here. There are lots of things, morality included, that can be put above God. So, now it seems to be more of a "keep your priorities straight" warning for lots of Christians. We're not likely to make any golden calves (couldn't afford it anyway), but we can argue incessantly on the internet

So yeah, morality can be a false god. To what end? If perfect morality becomes the end that you are concerned about above all (your new god), then isn't it ultimately self serving? Isn't it a way so say, "I'm better than you"? Christians are absolutely subject to this, it's a human failing common to all of us. Christians who believe that non-Christians are "immoral" appear to be appear to be guilty of it. Atheists who think "If God exists, He's going to have to answer some questions about [insert calamity that God never promised anyone would be immune to here]" seem to be too. They are both putting themselves into a position of moral superiority over others. It opens the door to vanity and pride.

You could argue with this, saying that God also has to be a person. But, if God doesn't exist, we probably don't have souls, and then we're only people because we personify ourselves and each other. So then all that's lacking in the comparison of morality to God is that we don't imagine morality as being a person.

I think the comparison of perfect morality to God is fine so long as we realize that it's a false god. I think it might also answer the question Bert Esq. asked earlier about why the Bible doesn't always provide a clear cut "do this; don't do that" answer to everything. Maybe the point isn't to achieve perfect morality, but to never stop trying to achieve it. In this I don't see myself as the kid who get's straight A's. I'm totally the kid who started out with an F and is steadily trying to earn that B-. The teachers love those kids; I think God does too.

[Flash2024]

Christian, Jewish, Muslim? Are Christians Jews with a Savior? We all grow up and absorb the overwhelming values of our society. There is no Christian without God. But there are those who are not Christian or believers in any higher power who share a morality system with those who do so believe.

I'm not sure that I follow here. Islam is distinct from Christianity, as is Judaism. I don't think it's so easy as to say that we're all in the same moral soup line dishing out the same fare.

It seems that you see morality as being influenced by society rather than being influenced by it?

IF you think Judaism stems from Christianity you need to go back and reread some books, or stop listening to some preachers.

[Crazy Anglican]

Christian, Jewish, Muslim? Are Christians Jews with a Savior? We all grow up and absorb the overwhelming values of our society. There is no Christian without God. But there are those who are not Christian or believers in any higher power who share a morality system with those who do so believe.

I'm not sure that I follow here. Islam is distinct from Christianity, as is Judaism. I don't think it's so easy as to say that we're all in the same moral soup line dishing out the same fare.

It seems that you see morality as being influenced by society rather than being influenced by it?

IF you think Judaism stems from Christianity you need to go back and reread some books, or stop listening to some preachers.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I said Islam, Christianity, and Judaism were not the same in terms of their respective takes on morality. I said nothing about which stems from the other. Historically though, Judaism came first, Christianity second, and Islam third. So, yes, Christianity began as an offshoot of Judaism.

[CaptainFritz28]

I'd say more accurately it's an ideal than a god, but in thinking about this; I came to a bit of an epiphany. Remember the commandment "Thou shall have no gods before me." That's kind of odd for a monotheistic religion, isn't it? It's pretty clear that in the Bronze Age it was a warning against idolatry, but it fits here. There are lots of things, morality included, that can be put above God. So, now it seems to be more of a "keep your priorities straight" warning for lots of Christians. We're not likely to make any golden calves (couldn't afford it anyway), but we can argue incessantly on the internet

So yeah, morality can be a false god. To what end? If perfect morality becomes the end that you are concerned about above all (your new god), then isn't it ultimately self serving? Isn't it a way so say, "I'm better than you"? Christians are absolutely subject to this, it's a human failing common to all of us. Christians who believe that non-Christians are "immoral" appear to be appear to be guilty of it. Atheists who think "If God exists, He's going to have to answer some questions about [insert calamity that God never promised anyone would be immune to here]" seem to be too. They are both putting themselves into a position of moral superiority over others. It opens the door to vanity and pride.

This is a good point, and it's something I hadn't really thought of before, but jt js true. While we are commanded to be perfect, Jesus knows that we won't be. He knows that we will sin and fall short of His glory. That's the whole reason for the Gospel anyways. Thus, as in Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Morality is not the ultimate goal; bringing glory to God is. We achieve that often by being moral, and so morality is a goal, but should not be our primary goal, or else it becomes a false god, as you mention.

In this I don't see myself as the kid who get's straight A's. I'm totally the kid who started out with an F and is steadily trying to earn that B-. The teachers love those kids; I think God does too.

We all are. Each of us is a straight F student who can never achieve an A on our own. The sacrifice and resurrection provides us a way to be seen in God's eyes as an A+ student, and we are commanded to try to be so ourselves, but Jesus knows we won't be, and thus He gave of Himself for us.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Okay, so where is your objective morality coming from, if you're so sure there is such a thing?

There is what appears to be a moral universe out there to explain. Nazism feels "bad" in a way that goes beyond mere cultural critique. There really does seem to be something like moral progress over time, even if we can't agree on its exact contours. Maybe these thoughts are just ghouls and goblins in my mind and there is no such thing as morality. But I take seriously that these phenomena deserve explanation.

For me, *a* convincing moral truth is the Golden Rule. It is in our nature to want others to consider our wellbeing and, to the extent we demand this for ourselves, we cannot logically deny it from others absent some special pleading. This is not necessarily a code handed down from on high, there is no scientific test that will ever verify it, and yet it's a logical precept I haven't heard a convincing argument against.

Another source of moral truth might just be the self-evident "badness" of suffering. Suffering is a subjective state, but I know what it is to suffer and I have good reasons to believe that other beings also suffer. It might just be *a* ground moral truth that suffering is "bad" and that less suffering is preferable. This isn't a perfect moral code by any stretch, but it creates the moral obligation to at least try to justify any suffering you're causing.

Our nature really might have pre-baked in some moral truths about human societies. These wouldn't be *objective* in the sense of being absolute truths about the universe, but they would inform a morality that is not simply based on custom or taste. A human society will simply perish if it suffers from a certain level of in-group murder or harm-causing deceit. Actions like wanton murder and lying are "wrong" in this sense, because they are incompatible with our social nature and because every human society will be obliged to limit them to some extent.

Of course, there may also be a God who really did establish "right" and "wrong". I'm not convinced, but it's plausible.

Each of these requires suppositions you might not find convincing. The Golden Rule needs you to care about logical inconsistency. You might intuit that suffering is actually morally irrelevant. You might think that the continuation of human society has no inherent value, so actions that accord with human nature have no special value. You might not believe in God. Likewise, none of these views of morality provide a ton of useable clarity about what to do in any particular real world situation and no one debating from any of these perspectives will be able to fully convince others that they've discovered the morally perfect answer. But any one of these could be *a* source of moral guidance that doesn't immediately conform to whatever a person or society dreams up as being "good" or "bad".

[mOctave]

Okay, so where is your objective morality coming from, if you're so sure there is such a thing?

It comes from God and his commandments (and I'd like to go on record as saying that I have no political aspirations in that )

By common definition, God is perfect, omniscient, relatively omnipotent compared to humanity (although usually not truly omnipotent, as the Christian God cannot sin and many gods from polytheistic religions have limited capabilities), and exists outside of time.

Yes, with the caveat that there is a difference between cannot and does not.

If there is an objective morality, then it is by definition perfect, it is what we all hope to achieve. It is also relatively omnipotent, since it guides the majority of people in most actions. It also exists outside of time, or else it would be changeable. You could argue strongly that such a morality is also omniscient. Therefore, isn't the morality you describe a God? Certainly it isn't the Christian one, but of course the Christian God isn't the only potential God.

I'd say more accurately it's an ideal than a god, but in thinking about this; I came to a bit of an epiphany. Remember the commandment "Thou shall have no gods before me." That's kind of odd for a monotheistic religion, isn't it? It's pretty clear that in the Bronze Age it was a warning against idolatry, but it fits here. There are lots of things, morality included, that can be put above God. So, now it seems to be more of a "keep your priorities straight" warning for lots of Christians. We're not likely to make any golden calves (couldn't afford it anyway), but we can argue incessantly on the internet

So yeah, morality can be a false god. To what end? If perfect morality becomes the end that you are concerned about above all (your new god), then isn't it ultimately self serving? Isn't it a way so say, "I'm better than you"? Christians are absolutely subject to this, it's a human failing common to all of us. Christians who believe that non-Christians are "immoral" appear to be appear to be guilty of it. Atheists who think "If God exists, He's going to have to answer some questions about [insert calamity that God never promised anyone would be immune to here]" seem to be too. They are both putting themselves into a position of moral superiority over others. It opens the door to vanity and pride.

You could argue with this, saying that God also has to be a person. But, if God doesn't exist, we probably don't have souls, and then we're only people because we personify ourselves and each other. So then all that's lacking in the comparison of morality to God is that we don't imagine morality as being a person.

I think the comparison of perfect morality to God is fine so long as we realize that it's a false god. I think it might also answer the question Bert Esq. asked earlier about why the Bible doesn't always provide a clear cut "do this; don't do that" answer to everything. Maybe the point isn't to achieve perfect morality, but to never stop trying to achieve it. In this I don't see myself as the kid who get's straight A's. I'm totally the kid who started out with an F and is steadily trying to earn that B-. The teachers love those kids; I think God does too.

I think what you describe is perfectly valid and good guidance for Christians. I think what you say about priorities is especially good advice.

If you don't accept the existence of the Christian God, though, I still think my point stands as evidence of a God of some sort. We cannot escape a society that is centred around God without removing all justification for our own existence.

Whether that God is the Christian God or not isn't something that I think any unbeliever can know, while a devout Christian, Muslim, Hindu, scientific or moralistic atheist, or member of any other common religion can instantly know, even if their knowledge is at odds with those around them.

[Wusti]

How cringey is this rubbish?

Since when does a discussion regarding morality become a pseudo-intellectual bible study?

Morality stands outside religion - it is not bound to it.

Honestly catching up on this thread made me want to vomit.

[CaptainFritz28]

How cringey is this rubbish?

Since when does a discussion regarding morality become a pseudo-intellectual bible study?

Morality stands outside religion - it is not bound to it.

Honestly catching up on this thread made me want to vomit.

I'm sorry that my religion is offensive to you, but that doesn't make it any less true.

[CaptainFritz28]

Okay, so where is your objective morality coming from, if you're so sure there is such a thing?

It comes from God and his commandments (and I'd like to go on record as saying that I have no political aspirations in that )

By common definition, God is perfect, omniscient, relatively omnipotent compared to humanity (although usually not truly omnipotent, as the Christian God cannot sin and many gods from polytheistic religions have limited capabilities), and exists outside of time.

Yes, with the caveat that there is a difference between cannot and does not.

If there is an objective morality, then it is by definition perfect, it is what we all hope to achieve. It is also relatively omnipotent, since it guides the majority of people in most actions. It also exists outside of time, or else it would be changeable. You could argue strongly that such a morality is also omniscient. Therefore, isn't the morality you describe a God? Certainly it isn't the Christian one, but of course the Christian God isn't the only potential God.

I'd say more accurately it's an ideal than a god, but in thinking about this; I came to a bit of an epiphany. Remember the commandment "Thou shall have no gods before me." That's kind of odd for a monotheistic religion, isn't it? It's pretty clear that in the Bronze Age it was a warning against idolatry, but it fits here. There are lots of things, morality included, that can be put above God. So, now it seems to be more of a "keep your priorities straight" warning for lots of Christians. We're not likely to make any golden calves (couldn't afford it anyway), but we can argue incessantly on the internet

So yeah, morality can be a false god. To what end? If perfect morality becomes the end that you are concerned about above all (your new god), then isn't it ultimately self serving? Isn't it a way so say, "I'm better than you"? Christians are absolutely subject to this, it's a human failing common to all of us. Christians who believe that non-Christians are "immoral" appear to be appear to be guilty of it. Atheists who think "If God exists, He's going to have to answer some questions about [insert calamity that God never promised anyone would be immune to here]" seem to be too. They are both putting themselves into a position of moral superiority over others. It opens the door to vanity and pride.

You could argue with this, saying that God also has to be a person. But, if God doesn't exist, we probably don't have souls, and then we're only people because we personify ourselves and each other. So then all that's lacking in the comparison of morality to God is that we don't imagine morality as being a person.

I think the comparison of perfect morality to God is fine so long as we realize that it's a false god. I think it might also answer the question Bert Esq. asked earlier about why the Bible doesn't always provide a clear cut "do this; don't do that" answer to everything. Maybe the point isn't to achieve perfect morality, but to never stop trying to achieve it. In this I don't see myself as the kid who get's straight A's. I'm totally the kid who started out with an F and is steadily trying to earn that B-. The teachers love those kids; I think God does too.

I think what you describe is perfectly valid and good guidance for Christians. I think what you say about priorities is especially good advice.

If you don't accept the existence of the Christian God, though, I still think my point stands as evidence of a God of some sort. We cannot escape a society that is centred around God without removing all justification for our own existence.

Whether that God is the Christian God or not isn't something that I think any unbeliever can know, while a devout Christian, Muslim, Hindu, scientific or moralistic atheist, or member of any other common religion can instantly know, even if their knowledge is at odds with those around them.

I will say that I find it interesting that I have received a great deal more opposition to my stated beliefs than CA, despite us agreeing with each other (I think) entirely. Perhaps I have been less kind with my words, and if that is the case then I apologize profusely.

[Crazy Anglican]

How cringey is this rubbish?

Since when does a discussion regarding morality become a pseudo-intellectual bible study?

Morality stands outside religion - it is not bound to it.

Honestly catching up on this thread made me want to vomit.

Hi Wusti,

I'm not sure how it qualifies as a Bible Study, nor really why that would be a bad thing. As far as I know Capt. Fritz and I are the only Christians who've written more than a couple of messages here. What garnered such a visceral response from you?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

How cringey is this rubbish?

Since when does a discussion regarding morality become a pseudo-intellectual bible study?

Morality stands outside religion - it is not bound to it.

Everyone else's arguments are too cringe-inducing, but you couldn't even be bothered to make one to support your claim? I invite you to make the case that "Morality stands outside religion - it is not bound to it." without sounding like a dork or a pseudo-intellectual.

It seems relevant to me that this comment was written by a bad ass with a Machiavelli quote on his WebDip profile about how he wants people to fear him lol.

This isn't anyone's PhD thesis, we're all nerds just by virtue of being here, and it's going to be hard to argue with strangers about morality in a low-effort forum discussion like this without occasionally sounding pretentious or misinformed.

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

How cringey is this rubbish?

Since when does a discussion regarding morality become a pseudo-intellectual bible study?

Morality stands outside religion - it is not bound to it.

Honestly catching up on this thread made me want to vomit.

@Wusti

This is not Bible study, but the Bible certainly plays a role in what our definition of morality and how to implement it is.

You may not agree that the Bible is the standard of morality, but many people in Western society do. That does genuinely affect our society’s view of morality, which then affects ours.

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

It seems relevant to me that this comment was written by a bad ass with a Machiavelli quote on his WebDip profile about how he wants people to fear him lol.

He changed it to insult Octavious

[Crazy Anglican]

How cringey is this rubbish?

Since when does a discussion regarding morality become a pseudo-intellectual bible study?

Morality stands outside religion - it is not bound to it.

It seems relevant to me that this comment was written by a bad ass with a Machiavelli quote on his WebDip profile about how he wants people to fear him lol.

I didn't like the ad hominems levelled at Christians. I think we shouldn't level them at anyone else either.

Wusti brings up an interesting point. To what extent are our divisions a result of conservative versus progressive thinking, rather than theist vs. atheist?

Bert Esq. you mentioned a movement forward over time toward a more moral society. historically both the progressives and the conservatives were Christian in the west. It's still true among Christians, although in an increasingly polarized political situation, I'm not sure about non-Christians. You and Octavious seem pretty conservative, others more liberal. Is there a difference in the perception about morality there?

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

How cringey is this rubbish?

Since when does a discussion regarding morality become a pseudo-intellectual bible study?

Morality stands outside religion - it is not bound to it.

It seems relevant to me that this comment was written by a bad ass with a Machiavelli quote on his WebDip profile about how he wants people to fear him lol.

I didn't like the ad hominems levelled at Christians. I think we shouldn't level them at anyone else either.

Wusti brings up an interesting point. To what extent are our divisions a result of conservative versus progressive thinking, rather than theist vs. atheist?

Bert Esq. you mentioned a movement forward over time toward a more moral society. historically both the progressives and the conservatives were Christian in the west. It's still true among Christians, although in an increasingly polarized political situation, I'm not sure about non-Christians. You and Octavious seem pretty conservative, others more liberal. Is there a difference in the perception about morality there?

Even so, not the way to go about bringing it up.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

How cringey is this rubbish?

Since when does a discussion regarding morality become a pseudo-intellectual bible study?

Morality stands outside religion - it is not bound to it.

It seems relevant to me that this comment was written by a bad ass with a Machiavelli quote on his WebDip profile about how he wants people to fear him lol.

I didn't like the ad hominems levelled at Christians. I think we shouldn't level them at anyone else either.

Wusti brings up an interesting point. To what extent are our divisions a result of conservative versus progressive thinking, rather than theist vs. atheist?

Bert Esq. you mentioned a movement forward over time toward a more moral society. historically both the progressives and the conservatives were Christian in the west. It's still true among Christians, although in an increasingly polarized political situation, I'm not sure about non-Christians. You and Octavious seem pretty conservative, others more liberal. Is there a difference in the perception about morality there?

I think a low quality and unhelpful post like Wutsi's doesn't need to be treated with endless kindness. If they have a point to make, they should try to make it articulately. If they want to burn things down, they should expect to get flamed in the process. I don't like that they were trying to discourages posts from people in this thread whose views I'd like to read.

*You* brought up an interesting point about re: conservative v. progressive that I don't think could be even charitably attributed to Wutsi's post lol.

I'd start by saying I don't think that whether there is some objective morality, or whether there has been moral progress, is a matter of personal politics. It's either true or it isn't, and conservatives or progressives can hold the wrong view. I suspect there is moral progress, but I couldn't prove it conclusively.

I wonder if there is really a consistent "conservative" or "progressive" way to view this issue. Self-described progressives, in my lifetime, went from championing and celebrating what they viewed as clear moral progress (e.g., civil rights), to claiming that there has been no moral progress and that there is no way to judge other societies (except, paradoxically, their own society in the past and the State of Israel lol). Likewise, in my lifetime, many Christian conservatives have softened their strict adherence to traditional modes of moral thinking over time in response to living in an increasingly pluralistic society (e.g., not that many are dying on the hill of opposing gay marriage anymore).

No doubt, though, one's inclination to believe in a relativistic or objectivistic view of morality is correlated with a bunch of other political beliefs, with the looser moral vision aligning with progressive/left views. Twin studies tell us that some significant share of these intuitions are straight up genetic.

I find it funny to be viewed as a conservative in this respect, when I consider my own politics and morality to be quite aligned with the progressives of a recent but bygone era.

[Crazy Anglican]

I'd start by saying I don't think that whether there is some objective morality, or whether there has been moral progress, is a matter of personal politics. It's either true or it isn't, and conservatives or progressives can hold the wrong view. I suspect there is moral progress, but I couldn't prove it conclusively.

I think it can be conclusively shown, Look at something like torture. It has gone from public entertainment to a war crime.

I wonder if there is really a consistent "conservative" or "progressive" way to view this issue. Self-described progressives, in my lifetime, went from championing and celebrating what they viewed as clear moral progress (e.g., civil rights), to claiming that there has been no moral progress and that there is no way to judge other societies (except, paradoxically, their own society in the past and the State of Israel lol). Likewise, in my lifetime, many Christian conservatives have softened their strict adherence to traditional modes of moral thinking over time in response to living in an increasingly pluralistic society (e.g., not that many are dying on the hill of opposing gay marriage anymore).

Sure, but civil marriage itself and divorce were divisive issues in the past. I think you might be right, since progressive vs. conservative tends to shift much faster than moral issues do.

No doubt, though, one's inclination to believe in a relativistic or objectivistic view of morality is correlated with a bunch of other political beliefs, with the looser moral vision aligning with progressive/left views. Twin studies tell us that some significant share of these intuitions are straight up genetic.

I hadn't really thought of correlation vs. causation on that i suppose you're right. Yes, Jamie mentioned earlier that he suspects there was a good but of nature and nurture in empathy, which I tend to agree with.

I find it funny to be viewed as a conservative in this respect, when I consider my own politics and morality to be quite aligned with the progressives of a recent but bygone era.

Yesterday's progressive can easily find himself being today's conservative.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'd start by saying I don't think that whether there is some objective morality, or whether there has been moral progress, is a matter of personal politics. It's either true or it isn't, and conservatives or progressives can hold the wrong view. I suspect there is moral progress, but I couldn't prove it conclusively.

I think it can be conclusively shown, Look at something like torture. It has gone from public entertainment to a war crime.

I agree entirely, but we've encountered some folks in this thread who would not accept any of the premises I put forward for why torture is genuinely bad and why it should be viewed as progress that we torture less often.

I also feel a lot of humility about my ability to accurately identify progress. Torture, slavery, etc. are the easy ones. I have a hard time conceptualizing how the world is actually "better" without these. But there are other things that change over time which seem good but involve difficult or incomprehensible trade-offs.

It's possible that almost everything I think is progress is actually neutral or bad, because I was mistaken about the "good" we were trying to maximize in the first place. And I can't convince anyone else (nor often myself) that my concept of the "good" is correct.

I wonder if there is really a consistent "conservative" or "progressive" way to view this issue. Self-described progressives, in my lifetime, went from championing and celebrating what they viewed as clear moral progress (e.g., civil rights), to claiming that there has been no moral progress and that there is no way to judge other societies (except, paradoxically, their own society in the past and the State of Israel lol). Likewise, in my lifetime, many Christian conservatives have softened their strict adherence to traditional modes of moral thinking over time in response to living in an increasingly pluralistic society (e.g., not that many are dying on the hill of opposing gay marriage anymore).

Sure, but civil marriage itself and divorce were divisive issues in the past. I think you might be right, since progressive vs. conservative tends to shift much faster than moral issues do.

No doubt, though, one's inclination to believe in a relativistic or objectivistic view of morality is correlated with a bunch of other political beliefs, with the looser moral vision aligning with progressive/left views. Twin studies tell us that some significant share of these intuitions are straight up genetic.

I hadn't really thought of correlation vs. causation on that i suppose you're right. Yes, Jamie mentioned earlier that he suspects there was a good but of nature and nurture in empathy, which I tend to agree with.

There is a rough logic to how it shakes out. It seems like people who prefer law and order, a well-defined border, etc., also tend towards rule-based moral codes and that's not surprising.

I find it funny to be viewed as a conservative in this respect, when I consider my own politics and morality to be quite aligned with the progressives of a recent but bygone era.

Yesterday's progressive can easily find himself being today's conservative.

Yikes, I guess I'm getting old quick.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

^ I have a hard time conceptualizing how the world isn't actually "better" without these.

Sorry, made a small but meaningful typo

[Crazy Anglican]

^ I have a hard time conceptualizing how the world isn't actually "better" without these.

Sorry, made a small but meaningful typo

Yep, that does make a difference.