Theists - Why does Morality require the existence of God?

by cantleave 122 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  cofty

  I am struggling to deal with your epistemological skepticism SlimBoyFat.

  You once told me that we couldn't say unequivocally that the earth is not flat and always will be.

  I think there are some things that do not need to be justified philosophically, they are just true. Let's see if you will allow any of them. They are based on Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape".

  1. Questions of morality only matter where there are conscious minds.

  2. Minds are capable of a range of positive and negative states.

  3. Happiness is better than misery.

  4. A world in which there is maximum possible happiness is better than one in which every conscious mind experienced the maximum misery all the time.

  5. It would be morally wrong to try to move us away from the first sort of world towards the second.

  6. It is possible to be mistaken about what actions will tend to increase well being and which will diminish it.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  6. It is possible to be mistaken about what actions will tend to increase well being and which will diminish it.

  I'll add that black and white absolutes don't work for everyone's ultimate happiness either.
• 

  slimboyfat

  It depends what you mean by earth. It depends what you mean by flat. It depends what you mean by is. Sometimes it may be useful to call the earth flat. I am most attracted to pragmatism as a philosophy, and this is how I understand it.

  I am not sure individual happiness is the most important measure in life. Some cultures value duty and loyalty greater than happiness for example. Terry Eagleton has a right good rant against happiness in this book.

  http://www.amazon.co.uk/Meaning-Life-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0199532176/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371075146&sr=1-1&keywords=Eagleton+life

  And Zizek in this short clip.

  http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U88jj6PSD7w

  Even if happiness is the measure of moral outcomes, it is still subjective.
• 

  cofty

  SBF - Is hapiness better than extreme misery?
• 

  slimboyfat

  A serial killer might be extremely miserable if he is unable to kill. But then be sublimely happy when he does. You tell me, is happiness always better than extreme misery?
• 

  cofty

  See point 6.

  A serial killer is mistaken about how to move from a world of misery towards increased well being of conscious creatures.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  A serial killer might be extremely miserable if he is unable to kill. But then be sublimely happy when he does. You tell me, is happiness always better than extreme misery?

  To hear them speak on the subject, even the kills don't bring them happiness. It's only a momentary thrill they get. Imagine the "morning after" feelings they live with and the fear of being caught.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Mistaken according to whose view? Is his own happiness not real? Or does it not count? How do you objectively distinguish a happiness that counts from one that does not?

  That's just an extreme example of course. There's no event in life that has the capacity to produce happiness that cannot also provoke deep sadness. It is not in the nature of the acts themselves, but in our subjective responses to them.

  Plus the idea that happiness must be the measure of everything and that it is a straightforwardly scrutible concept seems terribly naive. Eagleton makes a good case (he is not alone) that the modern obsession with individual happiness is an incidental product of late capitalism. Notions of the good life have not always been viewed as inextricably linked with happiness as our culture now makes appear natural. As I mentioned, other cultures have valued duty and honour above happiness for example. Far from being the universal measure of human aspiration across all time and cultures, it is actually an incredibly narrow and culturally specific obsession of the culture we happen to have found ourselves in.
• 

  cofty

  You tell me, is happiness always better than extreme misery? - SBF

  It really is a puzzle that anybody would ask this question.

  I say the earth is not flat - you say " It depends what you mean by earth. It depends what you mean by flat. It depends what you mean by is. "

  Epistomological skepticism is so tedious.

  A serial killer might be extremely miserable if he is unable to kill. But then be sublimely happy when he does.

  A man may be extremely miserable if he is unable to vomit constantly and sublimely happy when he does.

  We have no trouble dismissing such a person as mistaken regarding what to value.

  Edited to add - "happiness" is not the measure. I only asked if hapiness was better than extreme misery and you could not even grant that.

  Harris uses the term "well being" for the reasons you have highlighted.
• 

  cantleave

  *Devil's advocate*...

  So is moral objectivism a matter of concensus?