Morality Without Deity (page 16)

John_Mann

How is your "top down" system of morality based on the character of a perfectly good god better than my "bottom up" morality?

I can also throw this question to you.

This is the very point we disagree. I'm not saying your view is pure nonsense and I can see our "species of thought" bifurcate because a very little mutation. I don't know why you can't see this.

But in the end of the day only a long-term application of our views can (and will) show who's right.

I also know we can't be both right.

I find very interesting the fact I reached the "top down" starting from the "bottom up" and you'd found the other way. This is what is very interesting to me. I was in your shoes once and talking with you in a way is talking with a "me from the past". I have to say I had a very supernatural experience that made me question my positions. Now in retrospective I notice I always felt very uncomfortable with the position you defend now.

Each to his fate...

cofty

I will be delighted to answer the question in detail later this evening. I look forward to it.

You agreed that morality is about how our actions effect the well being of conscious beings. You advocate a top-down model based on an absolute standard. I propose a bottom- up method based on objective evidence.

If you are correct then you should be able to demonstrate that your system is superior. It should demonstrably lead to more reliable moral decisions.

This is your opportunity to explain how this is so.

Please note, I don't accept that our differences are simply alternative opinions. There is a true and false answer. Let's see if we can get there.

John_Mann

Please note, I don't accept that our differences are simply alternative opinions. There is a true and false answer. Let's see if we can get there.

Yes, I agree. We can't be both right and we can't be both wrong either.

You agreed that morality is about how our actions effect the well being of conscious beings.

Right. And usually there's apparent evil in the meantime just like parents submitting (unaware) children under painful medical treatment to achieve a greater good.

If you are correct then you should be able to demonstrate that your system is superior. It should demonstrably lead to more reliable moral decisions.

I think this is an oversimplification. Anyway we are already talking about abortion as an example of application/demonstration of our views on morality. We can continue to use this moral dilemma. You know my position I'm totally against abortion.

You advocate a top-down model based on an absolute standard. I propose a bottom- up method based on objective evidence.

This is where I see a total nonsense. Your attempt to differentiate absoluteness and objectiveness is complete pointless to me.

konceptual99

I have found myself incredibly ill-equipped to navigate the moral maze of right and wrong, black and white with the countless shades of grey in-between thanks to being a Witness, even though I have always been relatively liberal in my views.

Witness thinking gives you the answers. Abortion - wrong. War - wrong. Sexual activity outside marriage - wrong. Blood transfusions - wrong. I thought I had reasons but ultimately those reasons were based on a position that the rest of world cannot afford to take because life is simply not black and white.

Take the doctrine away and those reasons become highly suspect. One cannot afford to let a decision be the result of dogma, tradition or reasons that ignore reality. You have to consider context, relativism and things like the greater good.

As Witnesses one can sit in an idealistic ivory tower, pontificating on why something is wrong whilst the rest of the world actually gets on with trying to balance all the variables and make choices that suit the collective best interest.

It is a direct result of this that it is so, so difficult for a Witness to logically consider an argument rationally, weigh it up, look at the pros and cons and go beyond doctrinal rhetoric. Instead, they sneer at "the world" and it's inability to be perfect, pouring their disdain on noble efforts to look for solutions to very difficult problems as a waste of time. Instead, they trust that somehow God is going to sort it all out and you can just sit back, take the good from society whilst condemning every effort made to inject a little bit of progress into society.

cofty

That is so true Konceptual99. It well illustrates why we need an objective basis for our moral decisions.

Often it is very difficult. I suspect that is why people are often happy to settle for "god says.... the end".

It is infantalising - deliberately so. Jesus said that christians must become like little children, The epistles frequently address its readers in those terms.

It's past time to outgrow simplistic answers to moral questions. It belongs to the infancy of our species. Science has a lot to offer in terms of objective facts that we ought to take into consideration when making moral decisions. Answers based on evidence-free dogma do not deserve a hearing unless they can be reworked in terms of real consequences. Making god sad doesn't count.

John - thanks for your response. I will respond shorty.

cofty

If you are correct then you should be able to demonstrate that your system is superior. It should demonstrably lead to more reliable moral decisions. - Me

I think this is an oversimplification. - John Mann

You keep using this phrase as an excuse to ignore every one of my arguments. Why? If I misrepresent your views correct me. I have accumulated many, many evidence-based arguments in this thread which you have not even attempted to answer.

There is nothing simplistic about my challenge.

Your Position
You assert that our moral decisions ought to be rooted in the character of a good god. Your morality is "top-down". You start with things that you believe to be true about this absolute model of perfect morality, and then measure every possible action against that standard.

My Position
I propose that we can better make good moral decisions with a "bottom-up" method. We begin by gathering objective facts about the impact of our proposed actions. Our decisions are then based on how we can best enhance the well being of conscious creatures.

This method makes no reference to any ultimate or absolute standard or the supposed wishes of an almighty law-giver.

Let's imagine the lowest possible valley in the "moral landscape". This represents the maximum, pointless suffering for the maximum number of conscious beings. Please don't be tempted to obfuscate here, I am not describing suffering for a better purpose, just pointless, hopeless, abject misery for all.

All of our moral concerns are about moving away from this nadir.

Of course there will be times that we need to descend in order to reach a higher place - the temporary suffering of medical treatment for example - but a moral good is one that moves to a higher place in the moral landscape. One that contributes to the sum-total of well being.

I do not know any other way to make the distinction between absolute and objective morality more clear.

The Challenge
If your system of morality is superior to a secular one that takes no account of god then you should be able to powerfully demonstrate that this is so.

It is a perfectly simple challenge. One that I very much look forward to taking up later this evening.

Anyway we are already talking about abortion as an example of application/demonstration of our views on morality. We can continue to use this moral dilemma. You know my position I'm totally against abortion.

Actually we have not been talking about abortion at all. I have no interest in defending abortion.

We have been talking about stem-cell research and I am happy to use that as a good example of the difference between the practical results of morals based on an absolute perfect god and the one I am defending.

Over to you.

John_Mann

Let's imagine the lowest possible valley in the "moral landscape". This represents the maximum, pointless suffering for the maximum number of conscious beings. Please don't be tempted to obfuscate here, I am not describing suffering for a better purpose, just pointless, hopeless, abject misery for all.

This is called Hell. And I agree that such "place" is possible. Evil for the sake of evil with no purpose to a greater good. I believe God created the possibility of evil just like an architect creates the possibility of a suicide jump from a balcony (in law this is called normal risk). It's not the original purpose but it can be used to achieve an evil act. The possibility of evil is necessary to free will.

Oversimplification means that some moral decisions will only show its greater good in a far future (at the moment of our deaths). That's part of my worldview, involves mystery and a future disclosure.

Are you talking about stem cells from embryos? How is that possible without abortion (intentional destruction of the embryo)?

cofty

How is that possible without abortion

In vitro fertilisation.

Your absolute morality - based on an anti-scientific dogma about a soul - forbids it.

In my world it is a wonderful moral good.

John_Mann

First not all research about stem cells requires human embryos.

Second what's the point about how this embryo was created? Naturally or In Vitro? It will be intentionally destroyed in this research.

cofty

John in my previous post above I outlined the big picture, describing the key principles that divide us.

You ignored all of it in favour of bickering over minor details relating to stem cell research.

My challenge remains completely unanswered - If your system of morality is superior to a secular one that takes no account of god then you should be able to powerfully demonstrate that this is so.

If you really want to discuss the question of the sacredness of a zygote you could acknowledged the points I made earlier...

a fertilised egg might split days later and become two or more people. Where and when did the extra souls come from?

Most zygotes fail before implantation - where did all those souls go and why?

Sometimes two fertilised eggs will fuse creating a chimera. The person will develop normally. How many souls do they have? etc etc etc.

Morality Without Deity

Share this