by cantleave 122 Replies latest watchtower bible
I do not agree with your statement. I do not think that god creates that moral compass. That comes from within and you don't need a god to tell you/ show you that. I know many christians that are not moral and that varies from christians that have affairs, that do not honor contracts, that lie...so that statement is incorrect.
I do not believe in a god and yet I find that my I am far more considerate, tolerant, loving, caring, to others.
This is a catch-22 question. That's because the Bible says that God places a conscience in every man. So I think a more specific question is whether or not "religion" or belief in an organized religion is necessary for morality?
I loved debating with atheists on this point. Atheists will be the first to say they have a good moral compass without belief in God. BUT... that tends to prove there must be a God because God put that moral compass in all men. Not as much right from wrong as love thy neighbor, do no harm, help thy neighbor, etc.
God is not moral, thats a downright lie. In the bible God allows slavery, inequality of women, genocide and more. Everything Christians say is almost always a lie. this is one of them.
That's what she said.
Being a Christian I don’t think that morality depends on God in any direct way. People choose morality either on what produces the maximum amount of good in a situation, or on absolutes of right and wrong. The fact is that all people are subject to both types of morality whether they think they are or not. These two types of approach to morality are fundamentally contradictory to each other and clash is various ways. The solution to the clashes we see between these two types of morality in society and also personally depend on the question of is this life is all there is? If it continues and death is not the ultimate end, a solution to the moral contradiction can be found, and if not then it will never be found, and it is at this point where the God question becomes revenant to the question of morality.
absolutes of right and wrong - Seraphim23
I don't believe such a thing exists.
There are some things that I find it impossible to imagine ever being objectively good, but that's different from talking about "absolutes".
Objectively good and absolutely good are not the same thing, and they are both different from relatively good. I think it is more than semantics.
Morality is a human concept. No gods required.
I’m talking about absolutes from a normal human perspective. It might not be the best word, but it functions. I’m talking about things like not stabbing your innocent best friend if it saves two lives. To do so would be considered an absolute wrong by most people. I don’t mean absolute in the ultimate sense, but in the human sense. Even though it is also moral from the other point of view to kill an innocent friend if it saves two lives, and achieves maximum good in a situation, most people still consider it immoral from the other perspective, and that is the type of contradiction I am talking about.
For instance in human government there is need for intelligence services like the CIA and so on. Should they be given complete access to what the people get up to in private, or should it be limited? If those at the top go corrupt then this is a big moral concern. If those at the top are not corrupt at present, there is still the issue of how much should the intelligence services be limited or not so? It is always going to be true that one cannot judge what one needs to know unless one looks and finds out, hence a moral dilemma. If one judge’s morality based on the maximum good that can be achieved, in a good non-corrupt governmental situation, then people who don’t have anything to hide don’t have anything to fear, and one would allow complete access to people’s private info and personal lives because one never knows what they need to know unless they look. However those who believe in absolutes of right and wrong might object to this because it is wrong because it is wrong they say. People have a right to privacy and so on goes the argument. In a way they are right because one can never guarantee that a government won’t go bad and corrupt. Hence a contradiction between two common moral frameworks that we all to some degree have to face.
There is no real answer to this type of moral contradiction, and there are many such contradictions in life less obvious that the one above. The solution lies ironically when one places their own life as less important than others, which can only be done if one believes in some form of afterlife.
I do think it is very unhelpful to speak about "absolute" morals and then go right on and explain it in terms of relative morality.
I think you need to distinguish between - absolute, relative, and objective morality.
Absolute morality does not exist unless your first presuppose that there is an ultimate lawgiver and that she/he has communicated those ethics in a way we can access reliably.
The fact that no two christians can agree on anything proves that absolute morality fails.
Absolute morality also raises a more difficult problem. Does the deity decree declare something to be good because it is good or is it good because she/he says it is?
If the former then morality is separate from god and something to which god must be subject.
If the latter then god could decree anything to be good. This is what we find in the bible. If god says so then infanticide, kidnap and slavery are good under certain circumstances. This puzzle, called the Euthyphro dilemma, has defied resolution since Plato.
In practice then absolute morality, far from providing a solid base for ethics, turns out to be capricious. It is morality by divine fiat.
Cofty how can an atheist have an objective morality, on what basis?
I am a complete moral relativist. I think it's the only defensible position for those without faith.
