I hear many people argue that ethics would be impossible without there being an objective standard established by god. Does anyone know any good arguements around this?

I don't know why they would assume God=Moral Standard, but I don't have a really good argument against it.

Views: 323

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Since god cannot be proven, it really is the gold standard of amorality. How can one have morals when their "source" is an unprovable deity? Also, how can one prove that morals come from one god and not multiple gods? How can one prove that the god morality comes from is not evil? The lack of sufficient evidence to support the existence of deities is the main argument against morality derived from god.
Don't you mean immorality? I don't think that it is a gold standard of either immorality or amorality. You're just trying to say that divine command theory is a dubious ethical theory. But actually it's quite hard to argue against moral relativism. I've just read a book where the author tries to argue that some social norms are unethical on the basis that not all of the persons affected by the norms would agree with them, if given the choice. The book is Moral Relativism by Steven Lukes.
Supposed morals from a non-existent deity cannot be moral or immoral; they do not exist, making them amoral, or "without morals".
I don't think it follows that all persons who subscribe to a divine command theory of ethics are amoral. They may well assent to, and feel strongly about, various moral obligations eg don't steal, look after your aged, indigent parents etc. It's just that you don't agree with their ethical theory.
I do not think that the actual people are amoral, just that the theory of god-based morality is amoral.
So a deontologist would call consequentialist theories amoral and a consequentialist would call deontological theories amoral and both would call emotivist theories amoral and so on? Is that what you're saying?
Yeah, pretty much. No one has an objective answer, so all people can do is argue about their opinions.
You're splitting semantic hairs. 'Immorality' is knowingly doing a thing you consider bad. 'Amorality' is doing a thing without even caring if its moral or immoral, good or bad - usually only for the sake of expediency, personal gain or gratuitous self-satisfaction. Theism never even comes into play with amorality.

John Wayne gacy is immoral (to put it mildly).

Nike Inc. is amoral (also to put it mildly).
Felch said on 10 March 2009 - "'Immorality' is knowingly doing a thing you consider bad." Isn't that a perspectivist's interpretation of immorality? I am interested that you don't say - "Immorality is doing a bad thing."
Putting it broadly, yes. People (and I am referring to non-socio/psychopaths) have their own moral code - immorality is wilfully transgressing it. Amorality us not even thinking about it - you achieve what you want without any consideration for consequences, whether it does good or ill is irrelevant, not worth the time considering.
So you will judge the morality of, say, female infanticide, only by the standards of the murderer?
You're straying from what I was saying. Its not about what I think. Its about what the person with the defined moral code thinks. I was only trying to make the distinction between morality, immorality, and amorality. From the point of view of some, what we would call aberrant, social codes, infanticide may be a moral option in some circumstances. But it would not be amoral. There is a moral decision being made.


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service