Theists - Why does Morality require the existence of God? (page 7)

cofty

Tomorrow.

You could try reading what I actually said - that would be a radical idea.

slimboyfat

Who me? I did. And I offered a specific response.

The point is not whether I agree with you about the Taliban or how they treat women, the point is whether there is any objective basis for the agreement. You have not demonstrated any such basis other than simply by assertion and emotive rhetoric.

I think I understand your argument SBF, but Cofty has presented objective evidence because the Taliban is such an egregious example. Her example easily passes a utilitarian argument test, regardless of how one defines it (direct, evaluative, consequential). All one needs to do is tally the consequences.

Act consequentialism declares that an act is morally right if and only if it maximizes the good, i.e., the total good is more than the total bad. Only the actual, foreseable, intended, or likely consequences are calculated.

When the Taliban trample female autonomy, the actual, intended, likely, and foreseable negative consequences far outweigh the benefits. The benefits and consequences must be actual, etc., too. The subjective feeling of thinking God is pleased with them is an actual, foreseeable beneficial consequence, so it legitimately qualifies as a utilitarian 'happiness,' and should be considered. I cannot think of any other valid utilitarian benefits that could be added to this side of the equation; perhaps you can add some. I might add the benefit of maintaining the calm of the status quo, but I don't think that counts in utilitarianism.

However, the aforementioned benefits are far outweighed in scope and number by the actual negative consequences. The women are denied education. Education is proven to extend life spans of the mothers, the children, and increase the basic economy of the family. Their trampling of autonomy makes other countries less willing to support their goals. Being a functioning part of the world community increases total happiness by bringing money into the develop basic infrastructure, etc. Basic infrastructure increases happiness by lowering the death and disability rate. Of course, this list goes on and on.

With more time and thought, I could probably make a valid Kantian deontological argument, which is the opposite of utilitarianism, but I need to get back to Bar prep. Kant=we have a duty not to treat people as a means to an end. Kant=pre-act duties. Utilitarianism=post-act consequences.

FlyingHighNow

"Without God in your life, you cannot have a moral compass",,,, Please explain to me why you think that should be so?

We don't all believe that.

slimboyfat

Justitia Themis how do you define "good" before you start counting it? And how to you measure conflicting claims? I mean presumably the Taliban count adherence to their code of conduct as a "good" that trumps many others. What objective basis is there for saying they are wrong?

Justitia Themis

Justitia Themis how do you define "good" before you start counting it? And how to you measure conflicting claims? I mean presumably the Taliban count adherence to their code of conduct as a "good" that trumps many others. What objective basis is there for saying they are wrong?

Your not adhering to moral logic. In this case, I don't need to plug a value into the good; I can simply identify each good as an X. Moral logic (Kantian, Catholic Moral Theology, Utilitarianism) ALL measure conflicting claims; people makes whole careers of this stuff. I wrote the formula in my prior post: Act consequentialism declares that an act is morally right if and only if it maximizes the good, i.e., the total good is more than the total bad. Only the actual, foreseable, intended, or likely consequences are calculated.

There is no utilitarian good that "trumps" all others. Kant cites moral imperatives, but I'm not making a Kantian argument. Actions have good and bad consequences that add or detract from "happiness." We can simply label each happiness "X." The Taliban derive "happiness" from doing what they feel is necessary to obey God. That is happiness X. But they derive X number of happinesses (LOL! I don't think that's a word) from all the other things I noted on the other side of the equation.

There is no equation in which the Taliban will ever have more X units of happiness on the 'trampling female autonomy' side of the eqation that they will on the benefits from 'not trampling female autonomy' side of the equation, even if I plug in their religious subjectivity.

Once that happens, the moral equation exists for declaring the Taliban's actions morally wrong.

On a related note, you would probably like this site: http://plato.stanford.edu/

Happiness from trampling female autonomy=

1) It makes the them happy to think they are serving God= 1 Happiness X

Unhappiness from trampling female autonomy

1) Lack of female education leads to more proverty= -1 Happiness X

2) Foreign gov'ts do not want to help = -1 Happiness X

Until someone can add more lines under the happiness heading than there are under the unhappiness heading, the Taliban cannot make a legitimate utilitarian moral argument.

caliber

Theists - Why does Morality require the existence of God ?

Because it is spoken of right in the Bible which Christians believe is the word of God.

Ro 2:

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves

Romans 2;15 ..They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Justitia Themis

Theists - Why does Morality require the existence of God ?

Because it is spoken of right in the Bible...

Wow. Circular reasoning.

These facts are true because they are in F 's Diary.
F 's Diary is true because it contains these facts.

The symbolic form of such an argument could be put thus:

If A, then B: if B, then C: if C, then A.

caliber

Wow. Circular reasoning. nevertheless this is where the idea or thought comes from , which is why Christians believe it.

Which came first the chicken or the egg ?

Where did the idea of circular reasoning come from ? from men... so it must be right.. therefore God is not needed for mortality right ?

The existence of God is eternal or circular... linear logic does not work in such a case IMHO

It all comes down to what you recognize as your final authority

The Circular reasoning logic invalidates the whole idea of God anyway does it not ?

slimboyfat

How do you measure happinesses relative to one another?

Presumably the happiness from the birth of a child for example, would usually be greater than the happiness from an ice cream. But how do you measure? It's entirely subjective. Or would you say, "on the plus side my first child was born today, and on the negative side I dropped my ice cream on the street, so with one plus and one minus the day ended roughly neutral"?

Plus why should human happiness be the measure of everything anyway? What's the Taliban policy on horses? Are they better or worse off? Who is counting their happinesses?

Theists - Why does Morality require the existence of God?

Share this