Is morality objective, even without God?

[Bradskii]

If that's the case, then you atheists who want a legal priviso to hold Christians at bay might want to start quoting Revelation 22:11 more often.

I don't see the relevance to what I posted. But then, I haven't had my coffee yet.

 

[Bradskii]

What is Christianity but the people of which it consists? That's a rhetorical question. I believe there's more to it, but I don't expect you do. I would expect you think it is no more than the creation of people. As such, Christianity IS the beliefs of those who call themselves Christian.

I was brought up as a Christian. Anglican. The good ol' C of E. I probably went to church a lot more than most people in this forum. Then as a young teenager it all fell apart (I was going to confirmation classes which would enable me to take communion, and there was a gradual realisation that everyone was actually taking everything seriously).

So now I'm not a believer. But...almost all of the moral principles I learned when I was younger, especially from my very religious parents, still hold today. I rejected the supernatural, I embraced materialism, but I kept everything that I thought was true. I kept what made sense to me. I read what Jesus is meant to have said the same way I read what Plato or Gandhi is meant to have said. So my moral outlook isn't any different than it would be if I was still going to church. It would have changed from that of my parents, due to their rather parochial views on some matters (I was truly horrified to find that my mother was a racist to some extent - but then so was I back then).

The point that I am making is that if you gave me a questionnaire about moral concepts then the answers wouldn't tell you if I was a Christian or an atheist. In all the years I have been on forums such as this I have never not come across some Christian who holds a moral view that I hold. So if you say that any given Christian holds to a moral position then I probably hold to it as well. The only definite differences would be specific beliefs like the example I gave earlier - that you shouldn't work on a Sunday. Those I reject.

So when you mention beliefs that Christians hold to, they're probably mine anyway. The ones I don't hold to are the ones that have no secular justification.

He was arguing objectivism in utilitarian clothing. In essence, arguing he had found a way round the 'Who decides?' dilemma when in fact he hadn't.

I'll just point out that you were the one that said he was pushing utilitarianism. I just pointed out that the law is nothing but utilitarian.

I think this means your answer is, no, you don't believe Christianity to be wholly derivative. What, then, would you say was unique about it?

It's obviously not exactly the same as Islam or Hinduism or Judaism. How long a list do you want?

Why wait for another thread? You have the floor, and I'd like you to fully state your case.

I'll be back...

 

[Ana the Ist]

A derivative is always inferior to its integral, right? Absent the latter, the former does not exist.

I didn't realize you were suggesting one was derived from the other...merely thought you were claiming some overlap.

Legal positivism is the theory that if it's the law then it is moral. The philosophy renders conceptions of morality to a derivative status.

Gotcha...I'm not big on legal philosophy as it seems like quite possibly the most pointless philosophical endeavor possible.

Under legal positivism, if legal system A, claims that legal system B is immoral it must do so only from a reference to itself. System B does not recognize the validity of system A, so the criticism by system A of system B is correctly disregarded as baseless by system B.

Uh huh.

The Nazis used legal positivism as their defense at Nuremberg. The Nazis granted that their legal system was different than the Allies and granted that fundamental German values were different than the Allies, one of which was the supremacy of the Aryan race. They incorporated their values into their laws that included the de-valuing of Jews relative to Aryans. The Nazis argued, therefore, that the systematic elimination of Jews was, in the German legal system, entirely valid. And, since, under legal positivism, the Allies could not judge the Nazis legal system as invalid, the Allies could not judge the defendants acts as criminal.

Pretty good argument...from a purely legal perspective. Did it work?

Jackson, the lead prosecutor, had to depart from the philosophy of legal positivism and proceed to a higher authority, a new and higher vantage point to prosecute the legal system of another country, ie., the natural moral law.

Which is pretty wild right? When exactly are we all supposed to decide which laws are immoral and whom to rebel against lest we face punishment from a conquering nation?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't see the relevance to what I posted. But then, I haven't had my coffee yet.

That's fine if you don't see any relevance. I meant it in a tongue-in-cheek way anyhow.

 

[J_B_]

So my moral outlook isn't any different than it would be if I was still going to church.

Your anecdote doesn't prove the supposed rule. We'd need a control group - say atheists who have never known theism, if that's possible. Or maybe atheists who've only known Hinduism. Whatever it might be.

Morality is not all of Christianity. In fact, in some ways it's only the sidekick of the Gospel. But that is definitely a different thread. Morality is the part that applies to what we're discussing. No doubt similarities can be found between various moral groups - it is indeed a Venn Diagram. But that doesn't change what I said.

I just pointed out that the law is nothing but utilitarian.

That's what you want it to be. That's not what it is. The law is whatever the political power of the group in question says it is.

It's obviously not exactly the same as Islam or Hinduism or Judaism. How long a list do you want?

I can't say for sure, but it doesn't need to be overly long - just long enough for us to find an agreeable talking point.

 

[Bradskii]

Why wait for another thread? You have the floor, and I'd like you to fully state your case.

If you are committed enough to another person that you actually ask them to spend the rest of your lives together, to live with each other, maybe raise kids, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others etc then I personally don't see that you need to register this commitment with anyone other than the person to whom you're making it. As far as I am concerned, the moment my wife said yes to the question 'Will you marry me', that was it. We were committed.

Yes, we did go through a legal ceremony. No friends, no family, just myself and my wife and two witnesses, one who was all but dragged in off the street for a few minutes to help out. And yes, we ended up with a legal document. And I'm not even sure where that document is right now - although I'm sure my wife has it squirrelled away somewhere, just in case there are some legal ramifications at some point re wills or something equally mundane.

But it has nothing to do with our commitment to each other. I can't see how it could.

 

[zippy2006]

Multiple choice question:

If you are committed enough to another person that you actually ask them to spend the rest of your lives together, to live with each other, maybe raise kids, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others etc then...

• A. This commitment should be captured by a public covenant or contract where the community witnesses the vow.
• B. This commitment should not be captured by a public covenant or contract where the community witnesses the vow.

Is it odd that the most significant promises of human life would establish duties and responsibilities of all kinds, including legal-societal responsibilities and duties?

 

[Bradskii]

Your anecdote doesn't prove the supposed rule. We'd need a control group - say atheists who have never known theism, if that's possible. Or maybe atheists who've only known Hinduism. Whatever it might be.

We are all influenced in some way by what we know. That there is a commonality between groups is a given. And that's the only point I'm making. If you could find some obscure society in the Amazon that I know nothing about then there's be more that we agree on than we would disagree.

That's what you want it to be. That's not what it is. The law is whatever the political power of the group in question says it is.

OK, I'll say that that's what it's meant to be.

I can't say for sure, but it doesn't need to be overly long - just long enough for us to find an agreeable talking point.

Actually, all the things that come to mind are shared in some fashion by some other religions. There are differences. But they're not unique. A father and son. A trinity. A virgin birth. A resurrection. Heaven and hell. Creation, floods and an evil devil figure. What might be interesting is if I asked you what sets Christianity apart from all other religions and we can investigate if any other at some time has had a common concept.

 

[Bradskii]

Multiple choice question:

• A. This commitment should be captured by a public covenant or contract where the community witnesses the vow.
• B. This commitment should not be captured by a public covenant or contract where the community witnesses the vow.

C: This commitment doesn't need to captured by a public covenant or contract where the community witnesses the vow.

I'll go C. It stands alone as a promise made between two people. I personally could care less if 'the community' witnesses it or not. It changes nothing whatsoever.

Is it odd that the most significant promises of human life would establish duties and responsibilities of all kinds, including legal-societal responsibilities and duties?

Yes, it is. I'll just note that you need a license to own a dog but you don't need one to have children.

 

[zippy2006]

I personally could care less if 'the community' witnesses it or not. It changes nothing whatsoever.

Tell that to Jeff Bezos.

Yes, it is. I'll just note that you need a license to own a dog but you don't need one to have children.

Right, but who cares about children? Better that dad can abandon the family without any consequences than that a lifelong vow of social beings would implicate the social community. Heaven forbid we would think about someone other than the two individuals having sex.

 

[Bradskii]

Tell that to Jeff Bezos.


Right, but who cares about children? Better that dad can abandon the family without any consequences...

From here: Myth of a Common-Law Spouse: Clearing up legal misconceptions | Lamb Brooks

'If a child is born to a cohabiting couple, both parents share parental responsibility. If the parents separate, both have the right to apply for child maintenance, and the courts can intervene to make decisions about child arrangements. These rights do not extend to the couple themselves but rather focus on the welfare of the children.'

If you're worried about the children, it's covered. And I'll note that you wrote 'a public covenant or contract where the community witnesses the vow'. Why would it need to be witnessed? If you're really concerned then you can register for a civil partnership.

 

[Ana the Ist]

At this point I think you've sufficiently undermined your own position with all the gish gallop. Thanks for that.

A gish gallop is a list of arguments so extensive you couldn't possibly be expected to regard them all...emphasizing quantity over quality.

Anyway....

namely the subset of perceived morality that the Sovereign deems fit to publicly promulgate and enforce

Who exactly is "the sovereign" how does he "promulgate" and "enforce"?

I can see you've had a tough time struggling with what? 3 questions? Skip the second if it helps. It's war related anyway.

Are you going to complain about 2 questions?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your anecdote doesn't prove the supposed rule. We'd need a control group - say atheists who have never known theism, if that's possible.

If you mean "were never indoctrinated into a set of religious beliefs"....

I'd be one. Yes, we're annoying to other atheists as well.

That's what you want it to be. That's not what it is. The law is whatever the political power of the group in question says it is.

Indeed. Trying to think of the general law under Stalin that basically meant anyone could be convicted by the state of the highest crimes based on nothing and without trial.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is it odd that the most significant promises of human life would establish duties and responsibilities of all kinds, including legal-societal responsibilities and duties?

It is odd you think the public need be involved. It's not a vow to the public.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, it is. I'll just note that you need a license to own a dog but you don't need one to have children.

Who needs a license to own a dog?

 

[o_mlly]

I didn't realize you were suggesting one was derived from the other...merely thought you were claiming some overlap.

Not overlap ... rather precedence. Justice is a moral virtue. We have had unjust or immoral laws. We have not had moral virtues that are unlawful.

Gotcha...I'm not big on legal philosophy as it seems like quite possibly the most pointless philosophical endeavor possible.

So, we can put you down as a "maybe" as to the OP's question?

Pretty good argument...from a purely legal perspective. Did it work?

Nope. Like all subjective moral systems, it fell down like a stick-built house in a wildfire.

Which is pretty wild right? When exactly are we all supposed to decide which laws are immoral and whom to rebel against lest we face punishment from a conquering nation?

Not so much "when" but "how" do we discern which laws are just or unjust. Starting with agreeing on the basic human needs that translate into moral rights in order to live well works for me ... you know "don't murder me", "don't take my stuff", "don't lie to me" ...

"Conquering nation"? Might does not make right.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When you say it sounds backwards...I agree.

I think you mean "intuitively wrong".

It is intuitively wrong....we expect whatever result we see upon opening the box to have existed prior to opening the box. Cat dead or cat alive.

It's the absurd nature of the thought experiment itself which conveys an understanding of the difficulty in understanding quantum physics.




Right. Logic has its limits though. Non-contradiction arises out of the limits of words to describe reality. Inside and outside are polar opposites....can't be both inside and outside at the same time.....

Until you're inside a Gazebo outside somewhere. We could probably endlessly debate whether that's someone truly inside somewhere or actually outside somewhere because it's not entirely obvious what exactly delineates the two. We all agree the cat is in the box....but exactly how much box needs to be there before the cat is outside is....a tougher question.

Thanks. I guess I sort of understand. I do agree that words yank us around by the brain.

 

[J_B_]

If you mean "were never indoctrinated into a set of religious beliefs"....

I'd be one. Yes, we're annoying to other atheists as well.

You're welcome to contribute your thoughts on if and how Christianity influenced English Common Law.

 

[J_B_]

The Nazis used legal positivism as their defense at Nuremberg. The Nazis granted that their legal system was different than the Allies and granted that fundamental German values were different than the Allies, one of which was the supremacy of the Aryan race. They incorporated their values into their laws that included the de-valuing of Jews relative to Aryans. The Nazis argued, therefore, that the systematic elimination of Jews was, in the German legal system, entirely valid. And, since, under legal positivism, the Allies could not judge the Nazis legal system as invalid, the Allies could not judge the defendants acts as criminal.

Fascinating. I've never studied the legal arguments from Nuremberg.

Rather than just pointing at Hitler and saying, "He was bad. Like, really bad. I'm sure you'll agree," maybe this particular detail needs to be taught in history classes.

 

[J_B_]

If you are committed enough to another person that you actually ask them to spend the rest of your lives together, to live with each other, maybe raise kids, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others etc then I personally don't see that you need to register this commitment with anyone other than the person to whom you're making it. As far as I am concerned, the moment my wife said yes to the question 'Will you marry me', that was it. We were committed.

Yes, we did go through a legal ceremony. No friends, no family, just myself and my wife and two witnesses, one who was all but dragged in off the street for a few minutes to help out. And yes, we ended up with a legal document. And I'm not even sure where that document is right now - although I'm sure my wife has it squirrelled away somewhere, just in case there are some legal ramifications at some point re wills or something equally mundane.

But it has nothing to do with our commitment to each other. I can't see how it could.

This is a common argument. If you'll note from my previous posts, I was willing to concede your relationship as perfect. The reason for the questions that followed was to ask, "OK, for the purposes of this conversation your relationship is fine. But do all relationships last?" I believe you've conceded that not all relationships last, and further that when they end, it causes harm. So, we're starting from that point.

Actually, all the things that come to mind are shared in some fashion by some other religions. There are differences. But they're not unique. A father and son. A trinity. A virgin birth. A resurrection. Heaven and hell. Creation, floods and an evil devil figure. What might be interesting is if I asked you what sets Christianity apart from all other religions and we can investigate if any other at some time has had a common concept.

OK. It's a fair question, so I'm willing to entertain it. But I've never really thought about it before. It doesn't matter to me if Christianity has a unique morality. Maybe that's the conclusion it's coming to - that it doesn't matter to either of us.

As we discuss this, and my thoughts become clearer, maybe the only 2 points I could make have already been made: 1) That the English Common Law was influenced by people who were Christians, 2) that the English Common Law is different than pre-colonial law in other cultures (e.g. India and Arabia).

Maybe how they are different doesn't matter to you, as you'll argue that they simply had different arbitrary starting points and (for all "reasonable" cultures) they are converging on a utilitarian ideal. If so, I would disagree. I would say they are simply changing with the whims of the times, always have, and always will. People want to be free to do whatever they want to do, so they push for that. Eventually, when they realize that being totally free means other people feel no obligation to help them, and everything collapses about them, they sheepishly agree to some constraints. And then set about pushing to be totally free again.

But, to answer your question, I would begin with this. What makes Christianity unique is Christ. If you want to take it further than that, I'll have to think about it. My first thought would be: If Christian morality is unique, it would be unique in what it chooses to distinguish as moral and immoral as a total set. Think Venn diagrams again. Christians may share with Hindus in calling thing A immoral. And they may share with Muslims in calling thing B immoral. But as a total set, only Christians call things A, B, C, etc. immoral. Further, they are unique in that only they punish thing A with aa, thing B with bb, etc.

Most (if not all) cultures mark certain killings as murder (i.e. as immoral). If Christianity is unique, it would be in what killings are marked as immoral and how they're punished. I've not studied that enough to be able to say if that's the case, but my expectation is that there are nuances regarding murder that are unique to law systems established by Christians. On a different issue, it's easy to note that Christians lobby for marriage between any man and woman who desire a sexual relationship, and your morality does not lobby for that.