Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    We all believe that killing 6 million Jews during World War II was morally wrong, however not only do we believe it was morally wrong we believe it was objectively morally wrong. What I mean by objective is that if the Nazis had successfully taken over Europe and brainwashed us to believe that it was ok to commit genocide, it would still be objectively morally wrong regardless of human experience. However since our universe contains objective morality then it can only make sense with God’s existence, because God is required as rational basis for objective morality. Without God morality is subjective, because God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity. So the universe with objective morality makes no sense without God. In this light the Muslim or theist may argue:

    1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist;
    2. The universe with objective moral values does exist;
    3. Therefore, God exists.

    Explaining the key premise

    The question about objective good or bad, in other words objective morality, has been discussed by many theists and non-theists alike. Many have concluded that there is no objective morality without God. Humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz aptly puts it as,“The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”

    Paul Kurtz is right; God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity, so without God there is no rational basis for objective morality. To explain this further let us discuss alternative conceptual foundations for morality.

    In God’s absence, there are only two alternative conceptual foundations

    1. Social pressure

    2. Evolution

    Both social pressures and evolution provide no objective basis for morality as they both claim that our morality is contingent on changes: biological and social. Therefore morality cannot be binding – true regardless of who believes in them. Therefore without God, there is no objective basis for morality. God as a concept is not subjective, therefore having God as the basis for morality makes them binding and objective, because God transcends human subjectivity. The following statement by Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, correctly concludes,

    “Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.”

    Since the universe contains objective morality, and Gods existence is necessary as a conceptual foundation for objective morals, then the universe we live in makes sense with the existence of God.
    http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/

    I disagree, I don't believe in an objective right and wrong.

    I think morality comes down to logic, and being coherent.
    I think suffering is wrong by it's very definition. That to say suffering is wrong is a tautology.
    In which case it's illogical to cause suffering.
    The issues are how do you know if anyone else suffers (see the problem of other minds).

    There's also of course the two main forms of social contract theory, see Rawls and Hobbes in reference to that.

    The argument for God here presupposes an objective morality, and an argument here for objective morality presupposes a God.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Does the universe contain objective morality? I think it's just an illusion. Every (mentally sound) person knows not to kill other people. And most animals know not to kill their own too (on a subconscious level). You'd be forgiven for thinking something was woven into the very fabric of the universe. But we have to observe this. Anything that did kill off its own would surely die out and we'd never see it. There are a few others that all humans have. And they're "the big ones". The things that have an evolutionary advantage. And then there's a set of morals that definitely aren't objective. Some people think X is morally right, some think the exact opposite. These are the smaller ones that build better societies but aren't completely necessary for a stable species.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    We all believe that the Holocaust was objectively morally wrong.
    What do you mean 'we'? Speak for yourself, boy. I don't believe in objective morality.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    What are it's limits? Do they change with time? Are they relative? Do they differ from place to place?

    Yes there might be some things which do not change like stealing, murder, etc..

    but as far as I know premarital sex was wrong/immoral/unethical some time ago in almost every secular society...but now it has become some sort of a norm.
    this is just an example...

    so what is morality for an atheist?
    Secular society is a very recent thing, to some extent it doesn't exist. Societies are influenced by the religion with which it initially supported and although the government may no longer officially support that religion the religion still has a large influence on society. Its religions influence that caused premarital sex to be seen as wrong.

    The flip side of your argument is that religions morality is unchanging. If you believe this to be the case can you explain why the Catholic church no longer owns slaves?
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.