If God invented morality, then it's subjective. It's based on the values that the God determines to be right and wrong. Being the creator means nothing. Do you think a country's laws are objective too just because those laws were created? Unlikely. So why do you make an exception for a deity?
If I create a game and create the rules of said game, the rules are not my opinion on how the game is played;
Yes it is. Nobody is required to play your game the way you deem it so. In fact, they can create their own versions or variances that stem from yours. It's up to personal preference, also known as opinion.
The only argument you can make here about the game is that under your version of the game, it's a fact that there are specific rules. It says absolutely nothing about whether the rules you have chosen to use are right or wrong.
The same can be said of a nations laws. It's a fact that driving over the speed limit is illegal. But that only tells me the creators of the laws deem it so. It says nothing about if that's actually a correct speed limit or not or whether surpassing it is wrong.
Your reasoning only works in a polytheistic society, in which case none of gods invented morality and all of them have their own notions of morality.
We still are a polytheistic society if ignoring any specific religions/regions and simply focusing on the different deities our society believes in globally.
I think we can also agree that globally, despite differing religions or lack of, the majority come to much of the same conclusions about morality, no matter the deity they may or may not worship. More importantly, the morality is often not entirely reflective of their religious doctrines, except for in the case of extremists. Were their god/gods wrong about morality thousands of years ago? Or were we? Perhaps we are now?
If it so happens that my being does not exist, then I die and nothing happens. Pure and simple.
So you care nothing for the consequences of your actions and the effects it has on other people in your society? That's the value we're granted from having a moral system. The ability to co-exist and cooperate with one another peacefully.
It seems to me you're only following a God's moral law to gain an afterlife if going by your statement...or perhaps to avoid a hell or even a combination of both.
A true objective moral system would not require any sort of creator. It would exist irrelevant of the beings in existence, including any beings of great power.
What you're describing, like it or not, is a subjective moral system. Your appealing to 'might makes right' (It is, because I say, because I can), not objective morality.
I let you know me... see me. I gave you a rare gift, but you didn't want it - Hannibal Lecter
reply
share
Prosecutor-Edgeworth
9 years ago
Do you think a country's laws are objective too just because those laws were created?
Absolutely. For example, in all 50 states, theft is deemed a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment. It is not my opinion that theft is against the law in the United States. Theft is literally legislated to be against the law and is thus objectively illegal in the United States.
Yes it is. Nobody is required to play your game the way you deem it so.
Actually they are or else they aren't playing my game in the first place, but a game of their own creation. Thus, your position that they could create something else with their own variances concedes the point. You aren't playing my game unless it is played by my rules.
The same can be said of a nations laws. It's a fact that driving over the speed limit is illegal. But that only tells me the creators of the laws deem it so. It says nothing about if that's actually a correct speed limit or not or whether surpassing it is wrong.
It not only tells you that the creator of the laws deem it so, but that speeding is in fact illegal. Therefore, speeding is objectively illegal; its legality is not subject to opinion in the country it is deemed illegal in. Sames goes for morality. If there is an author of morality, it follows that what he deems moral is objectively moral.
We still are a polytheistic society if ignoring any specific religions/regions and simply focusing on the different deities our society believes in globally.
None of which is relevant since this discussion is premised on there being one god and said god being the author of morality. You are making the point that even if this is the case, the morality that said god authors cannot be objective.
So you care nothing for the consequences of your actions and the effects it has on other people in your society?
That's the value we're granted from having a moral system. The ability to co-exist and cooperate with one another peacefully.
What logical reason do I have to care about said consequences and effects beyond what I've already laid out? Rape and murder will land me in jail or otherwise make my brief existence less comfortable. On the other hand, maybe I don't want peace. Maybe I don't mind getting my hands dirty. Maybe I want to shake things up. What difference should it make whether I violate a bunch of rules people came up with for their own convenience? Subjective morality is just not persuasive.
It seems to me you're only following a God's moral law to gain an afterlife if going by your statement...or perhaps to avoid a hell or even a combination of both.
You asked me what happens if there is no God. I think I gave a pretty adequate answer. Nothing. You die. As for why I follow his moral law, however, that's a different matter entirely. If it were simply a matter of securing an after life, I wouldn't really need to follow the law, would I? Simply accepting Christ would suffice. It's not that simple though. As a Christian, you still want to prevail in your struggle with your sinful nature and maintain a close relationship with God. Obeying God's moral commands is part of this process.
A true objective moral system would not require any sort of creator. It would exist irrelevant of the beings in existence, including any beings of great power.
I don't think your reasoning even permits any kind of objective moral system, since you make the case that objective morality is invalidated simply on the premise that one does not have to adhere to it and can just easily created their own variance. I don't see why you would conclude that this only applies if a creator is involved.
What you're describing, like it or not, is a subjective moral system. Your appealing to 'might makes right' (It is, because I say, because I can), not objective morality.
In the Judeo's Christian God's case, it's not quite "Because I say, because I can", but rather "Because I am." Might makes right is the sort of argument you find in plato's euthyphro and that's in the context of a polytheistic society with various gods, various differences. It's a weak argument argument to be raised against the Judeo Christian God since he's literally good incarnate.
Proud member of the Common Sense Resistance
reply
share
adempsey10
9 years ago
Absolutely. For example, in all 50 states, theft is deemed a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment. It is not my opinion that theft is against the law in the United States. Theft is literally legislated to be against the law and is thus objectively illegal in the United States.
You're confusing the issue and the application of 'objective' Your initial argument about objectivity was based on morality. Your response here says nothing about the objective morality of theft but rather that it being against the law is indeed an objective fact. Yes, objectively, theft is against the law, as in, it is provable and not subject to interpretation that theft is against the law. This, however, says nothing about whether theft is objectively immoral.
Your assumption, and that of most Christians, presupposes a Christian morality. You view your morality as objective because you believe in a god that defined those morals. That is, however, a subjective belief. I do not believe in God, therefore I do not believe that a god ever set down a moral code and thus naturally I do not believe that 'his' moral code is objectively and patently true simply because it came from him. While my morality bears a resemblance to yours (e.g. theft is wrong, murder is wrong) that morality is not founded on deontological authority. I do not act morally because I fear reprisal. I do good because my definition of 'good' dictates a certain moral disposition. You cannot say that you morals are objective but rather that you believe God's morality to be absolute. That is quite a different thing. All morality is subjective.
Furthermore, an objective morality does not exist. If it does, neither gods nor humans have access to it. If we did have access to it, it would fail as a result of human (or divine) subjective interpretation, just as the bible, which is supposed to be the unflinching word of god, is interpreted in a multitude of ways by various judeo-christian religions, each believing their interpretation to be the faithful one. A truly objective morality would not suffer from such subjective bastardizations.
reply
share